MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406168407 · doi:10.1016/j.iref.2025.103850

Exit disruption and matching in venture capital markets: Evidence based on IPO suspensions in China

2025· article· en· W4406168407 on OpenAlexaff
Hui Fu, Qianqian Liu, Yunbi An, Jun Yang, Heng Xiong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Economics & Finance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityUniversity of Windsor
FundersHumanities and Social Sciences Youth Foundation, Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaColorado Society for Respiratory CareState Administration of Foreign Experts AffairsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInitial public offeringVenture capitalChinaMatching (statistics)BusinessEconomicsFinancial systemMonetary economicsFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the impact of IPO suspensions on the matching relationship between venture capital firms (VCs) and startups in China’s venture capital market. We find that IPO suspensions significantly improve the degree of matching between VCs and startups. This effect is particularly pronounced for lower-quality VCs and startups with limited growth potential. Moreover, the positive impact of IPO suspensions on matching is stronger when VCs are domestic or state-backed, when VCs and startups are located in the same region, or when startups are in the middle or late stages of development. Our analysis reveals that IPO suspensions reduce VCs’ risk-taking behavior and facilitate information exchange in the venture capital market, thereby enhancing the matching process. These findings provide novel evidence on the role of government policy interventions, such as IPO suspensions, in shaping the investment and financing activities of VCs and startups in China’s venture capital market.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Economics & FinanceSame topicPrivate Equity and Venture CapitalFrench-language works237,207