MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132646922

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

2019· other· W7132646922 on OpenAlexaff
Shimin 陈世敏, 黄夏燕

Bibliographic record

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2019
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)Profit (economics)Profit marginStock exchange
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

与美国市场注重现金分红不同,中国资本市场热衷于高送转。高送转往往伴随着股价大幅度上涨与下跌,因而会引起监管部门的关注。2018年上半年,德艺文创和我武生物分别抛出“10股转8股派2.5元”与“10股转8股派4元”的高送转方案,上市公司推出高送转的动机是什么?为何会产生高送转行情?高送转之后两家公司股价走势相背的原因是什么?

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), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.101

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
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