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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1630.011

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; 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