MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205556360 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15010035

Bankruptcy Prediction Using Machine Learning Techniques

2022· article· en· W4205556360 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolvencySupport vector machineArtificial intelligenceMachine learningArtificial neural networkComputer scienceBankruptcyBankruptcy predictionExtreme learning machineBoosting (machine learning)Gradient boostingData miningFinanceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we apply several advanced machine learning techniques including extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), support vector machine (SVM), and a deep neural network to predict bankruptcy using easily obtainable financial data of 3728 Belgian Small and Medium Enterprises (SME’s) during the period 2002–2012. Using the above-mentioned machine learning techniques, we predict bankruptcies with a global accuracy of 82–83% using only three easily obtainable financial ratios: the return on assets, the current ratio, and the solvency ratio. While the prediction accuracy is similar to several previous models in the literature, our model is very simple to implement and represents an accurate and user-friendly tool to discriminate between bankrupt and non-bankrupt firms.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.188 · 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