Is intellectual capital performance and disclosure practices related?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breaks with the prior literature on intellectual capital disclosure practices in two major ways. First, provides a longitudinal examination of intellectual capital disclosure practices in the annual reports of 31 FTSE 100 listed companies from 1996‐2000. Second, investigates the relationship between intellectual capital performance and the extent of intellectual capital disclosure. Between 1996 and 2000 the quantity of intellectual capital disclosure increased. Empirical findings did not indicate a systematic relationship between intellectual capital performance and the quantity of disclosure during the survey period. Results, however, suggest that if intellectual capital performance is too high the amount of disclosure is reduced. This negative association may support the suggestion that firms reduce intellectual capital disclosures when performance reaches a threshold level for fear of competitive advantage being lost. Leverage, industry exposure and listing status was also found to have an influence on the quantity of disclosure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it