MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077643490 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v1n2p55

Concept of Voluntary Information Disclosure and A Review of Relevant Studies

2009· review· en· W2077643490 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu Tian, Jingliang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoluntary disclosureBusinessAccountingCredibilityFull disclosureAgency (philosophy)Corporate governanceInformation asymmetryInformation qualityTurnoverQuality (philosophy)Public relationsFinanceInformation systemEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Along with the economic development, the compulsory information disclosure of listed companies can not satisfy investors’ diversified information needs. The society advances higher requirements for listed companies’ information disclosure, which drives listed companies to disclose more information voluntarily. Recently, voluntary disclosure has gradually become a focus domestic and abroad because voluntary disclosure has positive impacts on the communication of corporate management agency and interests-related parties, the decrease of information asymmetry of investors, and the improvement of quality of disclosed information. On one hand, voluntary disclosure can detail and deepen compulsory disclosure, improving the credibility and completeness of compulsory disclosure. On the other hand, it can complement and expand the compulsory disclosure, for the sake of realizing the more complete, diversified, and systematic information disclosure. Therefore, the voluntary disclosure serves as an effective way for communicating interest-related parties and describing the corporate prospect. It is meaningful for perfecting listed companies’ governance structure and enhancing the protection for investors’ interests.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations47
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207