MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403118279 · doi:10.18374/jabe-24-3.2

DID THE GREAT RECESSION CHANGE THE CORPORATE BORROWING PATTERN? A STUDY BASED ON CANADIAN FIRMS.

2024· article· en· W4403118279 on OpenAlexaffabout
Krisha Amatya, Ayse Y�ce

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Academy of Business and Economics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecessionGreat recessionBusinessEconomicsFinancial systemKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates whether the Great Recession altered the capital structure determinants of firms.We use panel data of 208 Canadian non-financial firms listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) from 1999 to 2016 and perform econometric analysis.We compare the corporate borrowing pattern in three phases: the pre-recession (1999 to 2006), during the recession (2007 to 2009), and the post-recession (2010 to 2016).We find that the significance of growth prospects, collateralizable assets, and profitability varies across all three phases while making corporate borrowing or capital structure decisions.Our research is distinctive because it examines the determinants of capital structure for a specific country and how it can change with the economic situation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Academy of Business and EconomicsSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207