MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003679921 · doi:10.3917/cca.172.0037

Pertinence des différentes modalités de présentation et comptabilisation des régimes d'options d'achat d'actions

2011· article· fr· W2003679921 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sylvie Berthelot, Tania Morris, Aurélie Desfleurs

Bibliographic record

VenueComptabilité - Contrôle - Audit · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Cette étude examine la pertinence de l’information relative aux options d’achat d’actions (OAA) attribuées aux dirigeants et publiée ou comptabilisée en vertu des différentes modalités ayant eu cours au Canada entre 2000 et 2005. Les résultats des analyses, menées sur un échantillon d’entreprises cotées à la Bourse de Toronto, tendent à démontrer que la publication d’éléments d’information dans l’annexe tout comme la constatation d’une charge relative aux OAA dans le compte de résultat semblent pertinentes pour les investisseurs. La publication dans l’annexe de la charge pour options par l’intermédiaire d’un bénéfice pro forma ne semble toutefois pas présenter un contenu informationnel significatif.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComptabilité - Contrôle - AuditSame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207