MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323317751 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16030170

Bank Credit and Trade Credit: The Case of Portuguese SMEs from 2010 to 2019

2023· article· en· W4323317751 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
António Pedro Soares Pinto, Carla Henriques, Carolina da Silva Cardoso, Maria Elisabete Neves

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWorking Capital and Financial Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaInstituto Politécnico de ViseuMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino SuperiorUniversidade de Coimbra
KeywordsTrade creditBusinessCredit historyBank creditFinancial systemMarket liquidityCredit referencePanel dataCredit crunchPortugueseSample (material)FinanceTrade financeCredit card interestCredit enhancementCredit riskEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small companies face significant difficulties in accessing finance, and the use of bank credit and trade credit are the primary sources of financing, specifically in small countries, with little market liquidity, and focused on the banking system, as is the case of Portugal. The main objective of this article is to identify significant drivers of bank and trade credit, as well as investigate the complementary or substitutive relationship between them, considering that both constitute an essential source of financing for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The sample comprises 5860 companies, and the analysis was performed using panel data methodology (2010–2019). The results suggest that, during the period in which the financial crisis was most felt in the country (2010–2013), companies intensified their demand for trade credit, and in the following years for bank credit. Our evidence does support the substitution hypothesis between trade and bank credit.

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)0.004
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicWorking Capital and Financial PerformanceFrench-language works237,207