MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040459311 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v3n5p178

Determinants of Non-Disclosure of Intellectual Capital Information in Malaysian IPO Prospectuses

2011· article· en· W2040459311 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kok Fong See, Azwan Abdul Rashid

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProspectusInitial public offeringBusinessAccountingInformation asymmetryUnderwritingListing (finance)Leverage (statistics)Intellectual capitalTobit modelActuarial scienceEconomicsFinanceEconometricsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intellectual capital (IC) relevant information is an important aspect of the reporting process because it complements the conventional financial disclosure in the new economy. It describes the hidden assets of a company especially in the initial public offering (IPO) setting where high information asymmetry exists. This study investigates several variables that may contribute to the relatively low level of IC disclosures in the IPO prospectus using the maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian of the Tobit regression models. The sample of this study consists of 112 randomly selected companies seeking a listing in the Bursa Malaysia between 2004 and 2008.The results provide evidence that board size, board independence, leverage and listing board significantly affect the extent of non-disclosure of IC information in a company’s IPO prospectus. Conversely, the study finds no significant association with board diversity, age, size, underwriter and auditor type.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicIntellectual Capital and Performance AnalysisFrench-language works237,207