Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares three aspects of IPOs on the Toronto Stock Exchange's junior (TSX-V) and senior (TSX) markets: (1) share price performance on the first day and first year, (2) volume on the first day and first year, and (3) days between the predicted IPO date, IPO announcement date and actual IPO date. The primary difference between TSX and TSX-V IPO companies is that TSX-V companies are significantly more underpriced than TSX companies, even after controlling for other company-specific factors, which suggests higher listing standards provide a signalling benefit to companies over-and-above what companies themselves are able to signal. Similarly, TSX companies experience a shorter time from IPO announcement date to an accurately predicted actual IPO date, suggesting TSX companies are better prepared to overcome the hurdles of exchange regulators scrutinizing their preliminary prospectuses. Taken together, the evidence is consistent with the view that higher exchange listing standards screen out companies that are less prepared to go public. But the data show exchange listing standards are not directly related to 1-year share price performance and/or trading volume as those performance indicators are more closely connected to observable company-specific factors.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".