Table 6

Comparison of models' version

Model versionsWald statisticDegrees of freedomOverall significance (p-value)Residual standard errorAdjusted R2 AIC
Model 1 – capital raised
A. Platform features only5.4227< 0.0002.30.196
B. Issuer features only8.14228< 0.0002.50.065
C. Campaign features only3.98224< 0.0002.50.068
D. All features4.7215< 0.0002.20.258
Model 2 – relative success of campaign
A. Platform features only3.212050.0081.80.047
B. Issuer features only15204< 0.0001.70.189
C. Campaign features only3.812040.0011.80.058
D. All features3.36195< 0.0001.60.256
Model 3 – success of campaign
A. Platform features only227241.914.530.001253.9
B. Issuer features only228256.712.590.038266.7
C. Campaign features only224241.42.850.005259.4
D. All features215210.72.110.008246.7

Note(s): The table shows the comparison of models’ version. The sample size in Model 1 and 3 is 233 cases, since 9 cases were excluded because of missing values on some explanatory variables and 2 more outlying influential cases were dropped from the 244 cases original data set. In Model 2, the sample size is reduced to 211 cases when the response variable is relative success, because in this case only all-or-nothing campaigns are considered

[ViewLarge]
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal