Corporate Failure Prediction: A Literature Review of Altman Z-Score and Machine Learning Models Within a Technology Adoption Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on corporate failure prediction is focused on increasing the model’s statistical accuracy, most recently via the introduction of a variety of machine learning (ML)-based models, often overlooking the practical appeal and potential adoption barriers in the context of corporate management. This literature review compares ML models with the classic, widely accepted Altman Z-score through a technology adoption lens. We map how technological features, organizational readiness, environmental pressure and user perceptions shape adoption using an integrated technology adoption framework that combines the Technology–Organization–Environment framework with the Technology Acceptance Model. The analysis shows that Z-score models offer simplicity, interpretability and low cost, suiting firms with limited analytical resources, whereas ML models deliver superior accuracy and adaptability but require advanced data infrastructure, specialized expertise and regulatory clarity. By linking the models’ characteristics with adoption determinants, the study clarifies when each model is most appropriate and sets a research agenda for long-horizon forecasting, explainable artificial intelligence and context-specific model design. These insights help managers choose failure prediction tools that fit their strategic objectives and implementation capacity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".