How cost-effective are Canadian IPO markets?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'objectif de cette étude est l'analyse des divers coûts associés aux émissions initiales d'actions canadiennes. Elle repose sur l'analyse comparée d'échantillons importants d'émissions américaines et canadiennes. Nous avons étudié l'ensemble des émissions de la période 1997-1999, et seules ont été omises les émissions pour lesquelles l'information requise n'était pas disponible. Les coûts directs et indirects ont été estimés. Le marché canadien présente un avantage net par rapport au marché américain en ce qui concerne les coûts d'émission des entreprises de petite taille. Les coûts sont semblables pour les émissions de grande taille. Dans les deux pays, le processus d'émission reste onéreux, notamment pour les émissions d'un montant peu élevé mais nos résultats contredisent l'argument voulant qu'en raison de la structure provinciale de sa réglementation, le marché canadien soit moins attrayant que celui des États-Unis pour l'obtention de capital.
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 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".