MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409787617 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-275

Analyzing the Impact of Financial Sharing Models on the Efficiency of Resource-Consuming Firms in a Low-Carbon Economy Using Monte Carlo Methods

2025· article· en· W4409787617 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodResource (disambiguation)Carbon fibersEconomicsBusinessComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the greening and decarbonization of economic development and in search of a path to improve the corporate efficiency of resource-consuming enterprises, the study explores the impact of the financial sharing model on the efficiency of resource-consuming enterprises.The research hypothesis is formulated after the preliminary analysis of related theories such as financial sharing and accounting information.After completing the selection of research samples and data collection, the research variables are defined, the regression analysis model of the impact of financial sharing model on enterprise efficiency is constructed, and empirical analysis is conducted.The research hypotheses proposed in the previous section are verified through regression analysis.Monte Carlo method is used to simulate the financial sharing model and resource-consuming enterprise efficiency, and the net present value of resource-consuming enterprises is simulated during the construction period and the operation period of the financial sharing model, respectively, so as to understand their enterprise efficiency.The results of the empirical study show that financial sharing can realize the improvement of enterprise efficiency.Enterprise efficiency can increase with the improvement of accounting information transparency and accounting information consistency.During the construction and operation periods of the financial sharing model, the mean enterprise NPV after five years of operation is $608.4 and $2,327.4million, respectively, and the probability of positive NPV is 68% and 94%, respectively.

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)0.005
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicPrivate Equity and Venture CapitalFrench-language works237,207