MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3201211446

DOES FEMALE TOP MANAGERS’ DEBT PREFERENCE SHIFT? IF FIRM EXPERIENCES SALES GROWTH

2021· article· en· W3201211446 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sunardi Sunardi, Theresia Woro Damayanti, Supramono Supramono

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebtPreferenceBusinessSample (material)ProductivityInvestment (military)Monetary economicsDebt ratioFinanceDemographic economicsEconomicsEconomic growthMicroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study seeks to investigate the gender differences indebt preference and whether firms led by female top managers shift their debt preferences when they experience rapid sales growth. The research sample consists of 18,683 firms in 98 developing countries. The data is obtained from the 2016-2018 World Bank's productivity and the investment climate survey. This study uses the robust standard error to test the relationships among variables. The results show that female top managers have a lower preference for using debt as a financing source, especially for capital goods acquisitions compared to male top managers. The findings suggest that women-led firms do not shift their debt preference even when they experience high sales growth. This study is useful for policymakers who want to develop regulations regarding female mangers decisions related to the debt financing as well as their behavior in case of high sales growth towards debt financing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→