Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines voluntary intellectual capital reporting (ICR) in Egyptian companies' annual reports with a view to understanding ICR practice as well as eliciting the barriers that might impact the development and implementation of IC indicators in Egyptian setting. The study is an exploratory in nature and based on analysing primary data to examine the extent to which the CASE 30 Egyptian listed companies are adopting methodologies for reporting intellectual capital (IC) in their annual reports as of December 31, 2007. Furthermore, an empirical survey was carried out to test the usefulness of IC indicators in decisions and shed light on possible barriers that might impact IC indicators development and implementation. The reason for choosing this approach in this stage of research is the lack of research that deals with this particular issue in the Egyptian context. The results indicate that significant differences in market and book values of the CASE 30 Egyptian companies were found. Levels of voluntary disclosure of IC items are relatively low while disclosures are dominated by customer relations items. Additionally, the disclosures are in qualitative rather than quantitative style. The most important barriers that might impact the development and implementation of IC are cost and time associated with developing IC indicators. Furthermore, the results suggest the need for further developments in Egyptian accounting standards to take into account IC disclosure in annual reports of companies. This paper makes an original contribution to the growing body of empirical studies on IC reporting in Western studies in developed countries and describes the usefulness of IC reporting in Egypt. The study contributes to the body of research done in this area, as most of research has been conducted in developed countries such as the UK, Scandinavia, Austria, Canada, and the USA. There is a lack of empirical research at organizational level in the field of intellectual capital in Egypt, which is, socially, economically and culturally different from developed countries. The results of the study provide directions towards building a strong knowledge base for future intellectual capital development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".