MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1602384169 · doi:10.12735/jbm.v4i2p01

Do Board and Audit Committee Characteristics Affect Firm’s Cost of Equity Capital?

2015· article· en· W1602384169 on OpenAlex
Hanen Khemakhem, Ahmed Naciri

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business & Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudit committeeCost of capitalCost of equityEquity capital marketsBusinessAccountingStock exchangeJoint auditEquity (law)AuditFinanceEconomicsInternal auditPolitical scienceLawMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the association between board and audit committee characteristics and cost of equity capital. Using a sample of TSX-S&P 300 firms, our analysis shows that overall audit committee characteristics are negatively associated to the cost of equity capital. The size of the audit committee and the non-duality of the Chairman of the board are, however, positively related to the cost of equity capital. The results also confirm that being listed on the American stock exchange affects the relationship between non-duality of the Chairman of the board and cost of equity capital. However, being listed in the US capital market doesn’t change the relationship between audit committee features and the cost of equity capital and this can be explained by the fact that audit committee regulatory requirements are similar and mandatory in both Canadian and American capital markets.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.217 · 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