Predicting financial distress in TSX-listed firms using machine learning algorithms
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
Introduction: This study investigates the application of machine learning (ML) algorithms, a subset of artificial intelligence (AI), to predict financial distress in companies. Given the critical need for reliable financial health indicators, this research evaluates the predictive capabilities of various ML techniques on firm-level financial data. Methods: The dataset comprises financial ratios and firm-specific variables from 464 firms listed on the TSX. Multiple ML models were tested, including decision trees, random forests, support vector machines (SVM), and artificial neural networks (ANN). Recursive feature elimination with cross-validation (RFECV) and bootstrapped CART were also employed to enhance model stability and feature selection. Results: The findings highlight key predictors of financial distress, such as revenue growth, dividend growth, cash-to-current liabilities, and gross profit margins. Among the models tested, the ANN classifier achieved the highest accuracy at 98%, outperforming other algorithms. Discussion: The results suggest that ANN provides a robust and reliable method for financial distress prediction. The use of RFECV and bootstrapped CART contributes to the model's stability, underscoring the potential of ML tools in financial health monitoring. These insights carry valuable implications for auditors, regulators, and company management in enhancing practices around financial oversight and fraud detection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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