MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6887916148 · doi:10.17632/dk39nzc2zy.1

Code and Online Appendix for "Sovereign Risk and Intangible Investment"

2024· dataset· en· W6887916148 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyAsset (computer security)DebtTotal factor productivityCredit riskBalance sheet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Replication code for "Sovereign Risk and Intangible Investment" by Minjie Deng and Chang Liu. Abstract: This paper measures the output and TFP losses from sovereign risk, considering firm-level intangible investment. Using Italian firm-level data, we show that firms reallocated from intangible assets to tangible assets during the 2011-2012 Italian sovereign debt crisis. This asset reallocation is more pronounced among small firms and high-leverage firms. This reallocation affects aggregate output and TFP. To explain the reallocation pattern and quantify the output and TFP losses, we build a sovereign default model incorporating firm intangible investment. In our model, sovereign risk deteriorates bank balance sheets, disrupting banks’ ability to finance firms. Firms with greater external financing needs are more exposed to sovereign risk. Facing tightening financial constraints, firms shift their resources towards tangibles because they can be used as collateral. We find that elevated sovereign risk explains 45% of the observed output losses and 31% of the TFP losses in Italy from 2011 to 2016. Keywords: Sovereign debt crisis, intangible asset, firm investment, TFP loss

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1810.143

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)Same topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207