MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071856914 · doi:10.1111/1467-646x.00074

Equity Valuation and Current Cost Disclosures: the Case of Mexico

2001· article· en· W2071856914 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paquita Y. Davis‐Friday

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Financial Management and Accounting · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)Equity (law)EconomicsExplanatory powerAccountingMarket valueInflation (cosmology)Sample (material)Monetary economicsFinancial economicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uses an accounting‐based valuation model to investigate the relation between the market value of publicly traded Mexican firms and their disclosures of price‐level adjusted accounting information. The model is estimated on a sample of Mexican companies during 1987–1990, when annual inflation rates in Mexico decreased from 130 per cent to 20 per cent. The results indicate that general price level‐adjusted and current cost disclosures explain a significant portion of the cross‐sectional variation in the market‐to‐book ratios of the sample firms. Further, the explanatory power of holding gains is robust to decreases in the general level of inflation, which suggests that current cost and constant peso disclosures are relevant for determining firm value over a wide range of inflation rates. These results are particularly important now since the Mexican Institute of CPAs has proposed eliminating the measurement of holding gains in order to make Mexican financial statements more comparable to US and Canadian GAAP.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Financial Management and AccountingSame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207