Grabbing Investor Attention with Limited Resources: A Study of Small Cap Firms’ Communication Channels
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
This paper examines the communication strategies employed by small cap firms listed on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) of the London Stock Exchange. These small cap firms have great discretion in choosing their communication channels with investors and evolve in an environment with few information intermediaries. We investigate the use of three communication channels – press releases, conference calls, and social media – specifically surrounding earnings announcements. Our findings indicate that small cap firms utilize these three communication channels infrequently. However, when announcing positive earnings news, small cap firms are more likely to employ these channels, suggesting that firms communicate opportunistically. We find a positive association between the use of communication channels, particularly of social media, and measures of investor attention. Interestingly, while the use of communication channels is associated with positive stock returns surrounding earnings announcements, social media usage prior to earnings announcements is linked to subsequent stock price reversals. These findings provide insights into the communication practices of small cap firms and their implications for investor attention and market efficiency.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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