Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entrepreneurial firms face significant difficulties when raising equity capital. Public equity markets that might represent a significant source of capital have been relatively inaccessible, and past programs designed to facilitate this access have been unsuccessful. Programs that do not account for the special financing needs of entrepreneurial firms have performed poorly. We study Alberta's Junior Capital Pool (JCP), a program that since 1986 has been helping high-risk small firm ventures gain access to Canada's public equity markets. On the surface, the program is similar to U.S. blind pool programs; however, Alberta's more comprehensive regulations not only provide better surveillance but also address the specific needs of these firms. We study the 1,070 JCP's listed from 1986 to 1999, approximately 70 % of which were still listed on the Alberta Stock Exchange (ASE) by the end of 1999. Our database records the growth of an initial equity base of $113.7 million, but JCP entrepreneurs went on to build an aggregate equity capital base of $3 billion. While our study finds that the program works best for firms managing tangible assets, we also document how the program has benefited firms in other industries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.922 | 0.761 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".