MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416704672 · doi:10.1080/1540496x.2025.2576806

How Does Digitalization Affect Corporate Risk-Taking Level? Based on Resource Acquisition Perspective

2025· article· en· W4416704672 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Markets Finance and Trade · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicImpact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hunan ProvinceMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Perspective (graphical)Resource (disambiguation)Resource-based viewCorporate governanceKnowledge acquisition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sufficient risk-coping capacity is critical for firm’s sustainable development, yet whether digitalization influences this capacity remains unclear. Combining stakeholder theory and resource-based view, this study explores resource acquisition’s role in the relationship between digitalization and corporate risk-taking. The results show that digitalization can increase corporate risk-taking level. Digitalization boosts risk-taking level by improving supplier inventory turnover, reducing investor financing costs, and gaining analyst attention. Heterogeneity analysis indicates the impact is stronger for politically affiliated, low-competition, and high financial flexibility firms. Our research enriches the understanding of risk management in the digital era and provides actionable insights for sustaining financial stability.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.261 · 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