Predicting Insolvency of the Construction Companies in the Creditworthiness Assessment Process—Empirical Evidence from Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction insolvency is one of the most important issues during creditworthiness assessment, especially in the turmoil environment. That is why the problem of insolvency and bankruptcy prediction has been the subject of numerous studies focused on its causes, consequences, and prediction. The main goal of the study was to develop a prediction model that can be effectively used in practice to analyze and signal the risk of insolvency and bankruptcy of a construction firms. Also, the research must identify the key factors that would allow for early identification of the symptoms of the upcoming financial failure of companies from a construction sector. To reach the goal of the study discriminant analysis, logistic regression and classification trees were used. The final estimated models included nine variables related to the profitability; revenues; liquidity; asset’s structure; and dynamics of own and foreign capitals, some of which referred to the industry and market situation in a construct sector, which is a novelty compared to previous research. What is more, results show that the method chosen to estimate the insolvency prediction model could have an impact on both partial and general effectiveness in the process of creditworthiness assessment.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".