THE ATTRACTION OF BOND FINANCING BY FOOD PRODUCING COMPANIES IN ARCTIC COUNTRIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article contains an analysis of the established practices of attracting financing through the issuance of bonds on the example of companies in the agricultural and food sectors of the countries included in the Arctic zone: Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Russia, Finland, Sweden. The goal is to compile profiles of the bond market of individual countries and identify existing patterns. The research sample included 60 companies producing food products, which are also issuing companies in the debt market for the period 2015-2022. Conclusions are drawn, there are common institutional features in almost all the countries considered. Russia is characterized by an atypically large number of bonds placed, high market inertia, and high borrowing costs. On the Canadian market, the bond placement period is on average much shorter with a sufficiently large capital of organizations. In Canada, Denmark and Norway, there is a picture of hyper-concentration of the market with a focus on institutional investors. The situation is approximately similar with a much smaller number of bonds in Sweden, Iceland and Finland. The necessity of increasing the availability of the placed debt for private domestic investors was noted.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".