An international investigation of associations between societal variables and the amount of disclosure on information technology and communication problems: The case of Y2K
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the association between five societal variables—political and civil system, cultural values, type of legal system, level of economic development, and equity market features—and the amount of corporate disclosure on the Year 2000 (Y2K) technological dilemma. Data are collected from the 1997/1998 fiscal-year annual reports of 1618 publicly listed firms spanning 17 nations. Empirical findings indicate the amount of Y2K disclosure varied significantly across national boundaries. Statistical analysis indicates a strong positive association between the amount of Y2K disclosure and the level of (a) political rights and civil liberties and (b) economic development. Results also imply publicly listed firms in Common Law nations disclose more Y2K information than counterparts in Roman–German Law nations. Of Hofstede's [Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications] four cultural dimensions, only power distance is a significant explanatory factor of variations is the amount of Y2K disclosure.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".