MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7029918034

L’évaluation du crédit marchand à\nMontréal dans la seconde moitié du\ndix-neuvième siècle

2023· article· fr· W7029918034 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Agency (philosophy)LedgerPulpit
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente l'une des plus importantes et puissantes firmes d'évaluation de crédit en Amérique du Nord, la Mercantile Agency et sa sœur montréalaise la Dun, Wiman & Co. L'étude examine notamment le contexte entourant les premières firmes d'évaluation de crédit en sol nord-américain, le parcours des dirigeants, les caractéristiques propres aux bureaux de Montréal et, enfin, les deux principaux modes de diffusion de l'information proposée par l'agence : le livre de référence et le dossier de crédit. Je soutiens que la publication du livre de référence aura comme effet d'augmenter l'accès au crédit des entreprises qui possèdent un taux de capitalisation élevé auprès des créditeurs qui possèdent un abonnement. Les dossiers de crédit laissent, quant à eux, beaucoup plus de place à l'interprétation qu'une cote de crédit. Ils offrent ainsi une plus grande marge de manœuvre aux commerçants débiteurs qui possèdent une faible capitalisation justement parce que le créditeur peut interpréter de plusieurs manières le contenu de l'évaluation écrite. Cet article est avant tout une introduction aux firmes d'évaluations de crédit et une présentation générale de la succursale montréalaise de la Mercantile Agency. Enfin, cette recherche vise à renforcer l'historiographie en présentant une institution de régulation du crédit qui n'a, encore à ce jour, reçu que très peu d'attention de la part du milieu historien canadien. Abstract: This article examines one of the most prominent and powerful credit rating agencies in North America, the Mercantile Agency and its Montréal-based counterpart, Dun, Wiman & Co. The paper considers the context surrounding the first North American credit rating agencies, their managers' profiles, the specific characteristics of the Montréal offices and, finally, the two primary methods of information transmission offered by the agency: the reference book and the credit report. I argue that issuing the reference book resulted in increasing access to credit for companies with high capitalization rates from creditors who possessed a subscription. Meanwhile, credit reports allow for greater flexibility in interpretation than a credit score. They thus offer additional leeway to debtor merchants who have little capitalization precisely because the creditor can interpret in various ways the content of the written evaluation. Foremost, the article provides an introduction to credit rating agencies as well as a general overview of the Montréal branch of the Mercantile Agency. Finally, the purpose of this research is to contribute to historiography by presenting an institution of credit regulation that has yet to receive much attention from the field of Canadian history.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.222 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicBiomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207