MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380049190 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16060293

A Data Valuation Model to Estimate the Investment Value of Platform Companies: Based on Discounted Cash Flow

2023· article· en· W4380049190 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyongmook Cheong, Boyoung Kim, Iván Ureta Vaquero

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)Real estateCash flowDiscounted cash flowBusinessFinanceIntangible assetEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As both investment attraction and mergers and acquisitions targeting information technology and platform companies are becoming more important in the digital-centric economic environment, interest in valuing corporate data assets is increasing. Accordingly, among the income approaches used in business valuation, this study presents a data valuation model based on discounted cash flow. This model is expected to be useful for corporate investment decision-making. The assumptions used in this study for the estimation of data income include intangible asset value, exclude net asset value, and data attribution is centered on technology, human resources, and market factors. In particular, data attribution accounts comprise ordinary data research and development, data labor costs, and data advertising expenses. Data costs were divided into those incurred during collection, storage, curation, analysis, and utilization. Financial statements and related data from a real estate information platform operator over three years were collected and used to simulate the data valuation model. The simulation reveals that the operator possesses KRW 472.6 billion in data assets. Ultimately, the data valuation model developed in this study can contribute to strengthening platform operators’ investment attraction, guaranteeing financial sustainability, and transparency and data assetization.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207