Rachat d’actions au Canada : motivations, création de valeur et études cliniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette etude examine les motivations du rachat d'actions tout en verifiant l'effet potentiel du rachat sur la valeur de la firme. Precisons qu'il s'agit de rachats effectues sur le marche boursier canadien au cours des annees 1990. Specifiquement, cette etude evalue le lien entre la probabilite de rachat et les flux monetaires excedentaires, la politique de distribution de la firme, la structure financiere et l'asymetrie d'information entre gestionnaires et actionnaires. Les resultats mettent en evidence qu'a la fin des annees 1990, le rachat servait a distribuer des flux monetaires excedentaires aux actionnaires et a eviter la dilution du benefice par actions alors qu'au debut des annees 1990, la firme rachetait des actions sous-evaluees. En outre, meme si en moyenne on observe un rendement anormal en periode d'annonce de rachat d'actions, aucune des theories evoquees dans cette etude n'est en mesure d'expliquer ce rendement anormal.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".