MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213384246 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14110539

An Empirical Investigation into Alarming Signals Ignored by the U.S. Multi-Brand Retailer J. Crew Incorporation during COVID-19 Pandemic

2021· article· en· W3213384246 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ganga Bhavani, Reena Agrawal, Suhan Mendon, Cristi Spulbăr, Ramona Birău

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewBusinessBalance sheetSolvencyMarket liquidityIncome statementRevenueFinanceAccountingEngineeringAeronautics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the financial signals that have been ignored or have failed to be controlled by J. Crew Inc. from 2013 until 2019. Exploratory research is carried out with the help of secondary data which was collected from the downloaded formal documents submitted by J. Crew Inc. to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). Researchers analyzed these documents and prepared statements on vertical income statement, vertical balance sheet, horizontal income statement, horizontal balance sheet, trend analysis of income statement, and trend analysis of balance sheet, as well as ratio analysis on liquidity, long-term solvency, profitability, and turnover ratios with the help of excel. This paper has identified total of 15 alarming signs that companies either ignored, could not control, or did not act with alertness towards to stop the business being taken out of hands. In this research paper, the establishment of J. Crew Inc. was presented in four sections: Crew Retail Stores, Crew Factory Stores, Crew Mercantile Stores, and Crew Madewell Stores. The results of this study show that it was not the COVID-19 pandemic that pushed this retail giant into bankruptcy, but numerous reasons and financial turbulences. J. Crew’s financial performance gave plenty of alarming signals that the showed the company was not on track, but these were ignored by the company. Right from net profit, operating expenses, total revenue, goodwill, return on assets, liquidity, and solvency, all 15 indicators were not meeting the industry ideal standard for a continuous period of 5 years. Whether or not the organization can rebuild and contend in a post-pandemic world, is not yet clear.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207