MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125684054 · doi:10.1111/jifm.12049

Working Capital Management, the Credit Crisis, and Hedging Strategies: Canadian Evidence

2015· article· en· W3125684054 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Financial Management and Accounting · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWorking Capital and Financial Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample (material)BusinessCashPerspective (graphical)Financial crisisWorking capitalCash flowCapital (architecture)Monetary economicsFace (sociological concept)EconomicsFinanceFinancial system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study uses a sample of Canadian natural resource firms during the global financial crisis ( GFC ) of 2007–2008 to examine the influence of firm hedging strategies on their working capital management. Our evidence implies that increased cash holdings and derivatives are alternative ways of hedging risk, and also provides another perspective on the U.S. “trapped cash” controversy as our sample firms are not R&D intensive and do not face the same tax regime as U.S. multinationals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it