Does the Size of the Business Still Matter, or Is Profitability under New Management, by Order of the COVID-19?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Businesses should come up with a strategy, plans, and goals so that their total assets can make a profit during the transformation process. Utilizing various features of a property can generate this income. This comparison provides evidence of profitability. During the global economic downturn, a number of businesses encountered issues that caused their payment situations and profitability to deteriorate. The goal of this article is to ascertain whether particular profitability indicators also revealed the pandemic-related global crisis, particularly in the Visegrad Group countries. This analysis was conducted based on categories of business size. Specifically, 8671 enterprises were analyzed. The evaluation of indicators revealed whether there was a significant change in a negative direction, a significant change in a positive direction, or no significant change. It was possible to make a clear diagram of the companies that took part in the study and to figure out the median values in order to compare the results of the chosen profitability indicators. Correspondence analysis was conducted so that conclusions could be more accurate. According to the findings of this study, indicators of ROA, ROE, and ROS did not change significantly across enterprise size categories in the years preceding, during, and after the pandemic. Since the government regulations of the V4 countries had a significant impact on these businesses, the change was most obvious in the case of small businesses within the ROS indicator. The added value of the article is derived from its analysis of selected profitability indicators in the largest group of Central European nations and its relevance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".