MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Content Analysis of Risk Management Disclosures in Canadian Annual Reports

2005· article· en· W1985200630 on OpenAlex

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

VenueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYLimitingPolitical scienceRisk managementAccountingContent analysisPsychologyWelfare economicsActuarial scienceHumanitiesBusinessSociologyManagementEconomicsPhilosophyEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This research paper examines risk information disclosures in Canadian annual reports to provide insights into the current risk disclosure environment, its characteristics, and the analytical usefulness of the information disclosed to the firm's stakeholders. Following a content analysis, the authors describe and then analyze in greater detail the subject matter of risk disclosures of TSE 300 Canadian companies by summarizing and classifying disclosed risk‐related information. Results show a high degree of risk disclosure intensity reflecting both mandatory and voluntary risk management disclosures. However, the analytical power of such disclosures, as captured by the risk assessment analysis, appears to lack uniformity, clarity, and quantification, thus potentially limiting their usefulness. The authors conclude that more formalized and comprehensive risk disclosures might be desirable in the future to effectively reduce information asymmetries between management and stakeholders. Résumé La présente étude analyse les divulgations d'informations sur le risque dans les rapports annuels canadiens. Elle se propose de jeter une lumière sur l'environnement actuel de divulgation des risques, ses caractéristiques, et l'utilité analytique des informations divulguées pour les acteurs de l'industrie canadienne. Grâce à la méthode de l'analyse du contenu, les auteurs décrivent puis analysent de faĉon plus détaillée le contenu actuel des divulgations d'informations sur le risque des entreprises du TSE 300. Ils y parviennent en synthétisant et en catégorisant les informations divulguées. Les résultats montrent que les divulgations se font à une fréquence assez élevée, consécutive aux divulgations obligatoires et volontaires de gestion des risques. Cependant, vu la manière dont l'analyse d'évaluation des risques divulgue ces informations, leur pouvoir analytique semble manquer d'homogénéité, de clarté, et de quantification, ce qui limite potentiellement leur utilité. Les auteurs concluent qu'à l'avenir, les divulgations de risques gagneraient à être plus formalisées et plus complètes. Ceci permettrait de réduire l'asymétrie des informations entre les gestionnaires des risques et les investisseurs.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.231 · 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