MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010800230 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v6n4p55

Impact of Adopting International Financial Reporting Standards: Empirical Evidence from Turkey

2013· article· en· W2010800230 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Serkan Terzi, Recep Öktem, İlker KIYMETLİ ŞEN

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational Financial Reporting StandardsBusinessAccountingEquity (law)Financial ratioLiabilityAsset turnoverShareholderFinancial analysisStock exchangeFinanceReturn on assetsCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the impact of adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) on listed companies in Turkey was examined. We observed the financial statements that were prepared in accordance with IFRS and local GAAP and researched the standards which included more relevant information. We worked on the financial statements of the companies in the Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) that operated in the manufacturing industry. In our findings, we determined that the financial statements prepared in accordance with local GAAP and IFRS were statistically different. Significant differences were identified in inventories, fixed asset, long term liability and stockholders’ equity accounts in the financial statements. In addition, current ratios, receivables turnover ratios, asset turnover ratios, total liabilities/tangible assets, fixed assets turnovers, equity turnover rates, short term liabilities/total debts and short term liabilities/total assets ratios based on IFRS financial statements were statistically and significantly distinguished from the stated ratios of local GAAP financial statements. We were unable to observe statistically significant differences in book value/market value ratio analysis depending on the market value under local GAAP and IFRS. However, in subsector analysis, we identified that some subsector groups have been affected from the transition to IFRS.

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)0.182
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, 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 score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.182
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207