Corporate Failure Risk Assessment for Knowledge-Intensive Services Using the Evidential Reasoning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a new risk assessment model is developed and the evidence reasoning (ER) approach is applied to assess failure risk of knowledge-intensive services (KIS) corporates in the UK. General quantitative financial indicators alone (e.g., operational capability or profitability) cannot comprehensively evaluate the probability of company bankruptcy in the KIS sector. This new model combines quantitative financial indicators with macroeconomic variables, industrial factors and company non-financial criteria for robust and balanced risk analysis. It is based on the theory of enterprise risk management (ERM) and can be used to analyze company failure possibility as an important aspect of risk management. This study provides new insight into the selection of macro and industry factors based on statistical analysis. Another innovation is related to how marginal utility functions of variables are constructed and imperfect data can be handled in a distributed assessment framework. It is the first study to convert observed data into probability distributions using the likelihood analysis method instead of subjective judgement for data-driven risk analysis of company bankruptcy in the KIS sector within the ER framework, which makes the model more interpretable and informative. The model can be used to provide an early warning mechanism to assist stakeholders to make investment and other decisions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".