Financial distress predictions with Altman, Springate, Zmijewski, Taffler and Grover models
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
Several models have been developed to predict financial difficulties and corporate bankruptcy. In this research various models were employed, including the Altman model (referred to as the Z-Score), the Springate model (known as the S-Score), the Zmijewski model (designated as the X-Score), and the Grover model (referred to as the G-Score). These techniques serve the purpose of evaluating the likelihood of encountering financial difficulties, which in turn determines the probability of PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk going bankrupt. The study utilized secondary data sourced from financial statements spanning the years from 2020 to 2022. The application of the Altman model for bankruptcy prediction revealed that PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero), Tbk experienced financial distress throughout the period from 2020 to 2022. According to the Springate model, the company was in a state of distress and declared bankruptcy in 2020 and 2022, while 2021 fell into a grey area. The Zmijewski model indicated that the company was on the brink of bankruptcy, with financial difficulties and a potential risk of bankruptcy within the next three years. Grover's model predicted bankruptcy for the company in 2020 and 2022, but indicated safety in 2021. Notably, the Taffler model emerged as the most accurate in forecasting bankruptcy, boasting a 100% accuracy rate with no errors. Meanwhile, the Zmijewski model achieved an 81.25% accuracy rate with an error rate of 18.75%, and the Springate model exhibited the lowest accuracy in bankruptcy prediction, scoring only 12.50% accuracy with an error rate of 87.50%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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