MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W19955056 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.090062

Gestion des résultats et parité d'échange dans les fusions acquisitions.

2011· dissertation· en· W19955056 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faten Nasfi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce travail de recherche vise a identifier, d'une part le comportement comptable des dirigeants de la societe initiatrice d'une operation de fusion acquisition et d'autre part les determinants de ce comportement comptable. Les contributions de cette these sont d'ordre theorique, methodologique et managerial. Sur le plan theorique, cette these permet de completer les travaux anterieurs s'inscrivant dans le cadre des prolongements de la theorie politico contractuelle dans un contexte specifique a savoir les fusions-acquisitions. Outre la detection de la gestion des resultats, ce travail s'interesse a l'etude de ses determinants notamment les determinants contextuels qui sont rarement testes. Sur le plan methodologique, cette recherche presente un double interet. Premierement, elle commence par une etude du cas clinique, Sagem-Snecma, pour tester l'existence de la gestion de resultat dans ce contexte particulier, puis la generaliser sur l'echantillon d'entreprises francaises sur la periode 2001-2007. Deuxiemement, cette these, utilise un modele de mesure de gestion des resultats, qui n'a pas ete utilise dans le contexte du fusion-absorption (modele du Dechow et al (2003)) et le compare avec le modele de Jones modifie. Sur le plan managerial, cette recherche permet aux utilisateurs de l'information comptable lors d'une operation de fusion-acquisition de mieux interpreter les etats financiers des societes participantes a l'operation. Elle peut contribuer aussi a faire avancer les reflexions des normalisateurs quant aux dispositions reglementant ces operations en revelant l'ampleur des choix comptables.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207