MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035256792 · doi:10.1108/02756660510586274

Sarbanes‐Oxley legislation and the private company: if not a marriage, then certainly an engagement

2005· article· en· W2035256792 on OpenAlex
Dan R. Dalton, Catherine M. Dalton

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Strategy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationBusinessAccountingOriginalitySarbanes–Oxley ActValue (mathematics)Compliance (psychology)Private sectorLawPolitical scienceAudit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Looks at attempts to avoid Sarbanes‐Oxley guidelines over past few years. It has been widely reported, for example, that the number of public companies announcing their intention to privatize has increased 30 percent since the enactment of SOX. Some other companies will elect not to seek initial public offerings but will remain private enterprises. Findings Private firms have so far avoided such Sarbanes‐Oxley regulations changes. Pressure is mounting, however, to ensure that whether public or private, firms operate in compliance with SOX. Some states are considering Sarbanes‐Oxley‐like legislation. Practical implications Provides managers with information on progress toward applying Sarbanes‐Oxley guidelines to private corporations. Originality/value Of particular value to CEOs and other board members.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.201 · 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