MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131920038

High-Ratio Stock Splits: Profit Cultural & Creative Group vs. Wolwo Bio-Pharmaceutical

2019· other· en· W7131920038 on OpenAlexaff
Shimin Chen, Xiayan Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestricted stockStock (firearms)Stock market bubbleGrowth stockMarket makerStock exchangeStock marketNon-qualified stock option
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlike the US market, which focuses on cash dividends, the Chinese capital market is keen on stock splits. Large stock splits are often accompanied by a sharp rise and fall in stock prices, drawing the attention of regulators. In the first half of 2018, PROFIT C&C and WOLW PHARMA split their stock 1.8- for- 1. What is the motivation for listed companies to launch a large stock splits scheme? What are the reasons for the stock price movements of the two companies after the large stock dividends?

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2210.044

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCEIBS Institutional RepositoryFrench-language works237,207