MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408124420 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18030135

Determinants of Financial Risks Pre- and Post-COVID-19 in Companies Listed on Euronext Lisbon

2025· article· en· W4408124420 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Graça Azevedo, Jonas Oliveira, Tatiana Ferreira de Almeida, Maria Fátima Ribeiro Borges, Maria da Conceição Tavares, José Vale

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBanking, Crisis Management, COVID-19 Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Business2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)FinanceMedicineVirologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the economy and the stability of financial markets, creating challenges and financial risks for companies. This study analyzes the financial reports of companies listed on Euronext Lisbon with the aim of examining financial risk disclosures and calculating their determinants. For this purpose, data was collected from the Euronext Lisbon website as well as the companies’ own websites. Once the data were gathered, 16 companies were analyzed over a five-year period, from 2018 to 2022. Using panel data regression techniques (e.g., fixed effects regression models), it was observed that profitability, capital structure, and size have a positive but not statistically significant relationship with interest risk. Conversely, size and capital structure they have a positive and significant relationship with liquidity risk. Profitability has a positive and significant relationship with insolvency risk. Macroeconomic variables do not exhibit consistent signs across all models. This research provides insights into how the determinants of financial risks influence risks during a pandemic period.

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)0.001
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 score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicBanking, Crisis Management, COVID-19 ImpactFrench-language works237,207