MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311728824 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15120581

The Effect of Managerial Myopia on the Adjustment Speed of the Company’s Financial Leverage towards the Optimal Leverage

2022· article· en· W4311728824 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vahab Rostami, Hamed Kargar, Mahdis Samimifard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Debt-to-capital ratioOperating leverageStock exchangeBusinessCapital structureFinanceMonetary economicsEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adjustment speed of financial leverage indicates the movement of companies towards the optimal capital structure, and clearly shows the financing policies of companies. The importance of optimal leverage is such that the growth and survival of companies depend on this factor. This study investigates the effect of managers’ myopia on the adjustment speed of financial leverage toward optimal leverage. The current research is applied, and from the methodological point of view, the correlation is a causal type (retrospective). The statistical population of the research includes all the companies admitted to the Tehran Stock Exchange between 2011 and 2020, and using the systematic elimination sampling method, 124 companies were selected as the research sample. The research results showed that the myopia of managers has an opposite effect on the adjustment speed of financial leverage, so in companies with myopic managers, the adjustment speed of financial leverage decreases towards optimal leverage.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→