MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117294956 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18050884

Predicting Resilience: A Financial Management Perspective

2025· article· W7117294956 on OpenAlexaff
Brian I. Goodridge, Arron Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationEarnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortizationFinancial managementAssets under managementPanel dataPredictive powerResilience (materials science)Multilevel modelReturn on assetsWorking capital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This study empirically investigates the association between financial management and power plant resilience to hurricanes, addressing a significant gap in the multilevel resilience literature. Utilizing panel data regression analysis of financial metrics from Capital IQ and resilience data from The US Department of Energy reports, the research reveals that return on assets and total revenue are positively correlated with resilience. Conversely, average payable days outstanding, current ratio, inventory turnover, and EBITDA show a negative correlation. These findings suggest that deliberate management of working capital, particularly optimizing inventory for maintenance, is critical for enhancing resilience, as plant availability directly influences revenue. As the first study to operationalize power plant resilience and link it to financial ratios, this research provides original evidence validating sound financial management as a crucial antecedent and dimension of organizational resilience. Keywords: Predictive Resilience, Financial Management, Business Continuity, Accounting Ratios JEL Classification Number: O10, O44

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207