Public policy and the creation of active venture capital markets
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgements I owe many thanks to Colin Mason, Sofia Johan and Yong Li for helpful comments on this paper. Notes 1. Bankruptcy law is not considered in Da Rin, Nicodano, and Sembenelli (2006) because bankruptcy law differences across countries and over time were not readily available from extant sources (they were coded by Armour and Cumming 2006, 2008). 2. The reference provided in Lerner's 2009 book in endnote 16 page 210 is: ‘Government sponsored venture capital in Canada: Effects on value creation, competition and innovation’, Working Paper, University of British Columbia, 2008. The updated reference is Brander, Egan, and Hellmann (2010), which was published pursuant to a conference hosted by professors Lerner and Schoar in February 2008. 3. The proportion of cross-border venture capital investment from Canada to the United States for all types of Canadian investors and all types of investees (not just ‘venture capital’ deals as reported in Figure 4) looks extremely similar and as such is not presented for reasons of brevity. 4. Further, many limited partnership funds have covenants that limit the ability to invest in foreign securities; see Cumming and Johan (2009) for data on this topic. As well, it would be hard and less likely for a Canadian venture capital fund to raise money based on US investment objectives since institutional investors themselves could invest in US-based funds that are closer to the target investees. I owe thanks to Colin Mason for these helpful comments. 5. Likewise, IPO markets can have a significant role in shaping early versus late stage venture capital investments; see Cumming, Fleming, and Schwienbacher (2005); for work on the same topic, see also Gompers et al. (2008). 6. For comparable evidence that was distributed on www.ssrn.com in 2004 from over 3800 venture capital transactions in 39 countries, see Cumming, Schmidt, and Walz (2010). 7. For a more complete discussion of these alternative policy instruments, see Djankov et al. (2002), Audretsch (2007a, 2007b), Jääskeläinen, Maula, and Murray (2007); Keuschnigg and Nielsen (2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c), Klapper, Laeven, and Rajan (2006), Cumming and Johan (2009, 2010), Chavis, Klapper, and Love (2009), among others.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it