MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080076471 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v5n2p67

The Ability of Explaining and Predicting of Economic Value Added (EVA) versus Net Income (NI), Residual Income (RI) & Free Cash Flow (FCF) in Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE)

2013· article· en· W2080076471 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictabilityEconomic Value AddedNet incomeFree cash flowCash flowPassive incomeResidualEconomicsEconometricsStock exchangeMathematicsStatisticsMicroeconomicsPublic economicsFinanceProfit (economics)Gross income

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current research examines the main performance measures (Net income (NI), residual income (RI), economic value added (EVA) & free cash flow (FCF)) of firm and management to find out whether EVA works better than other performance measures in terms of evaluating the firm’s performance. Then we examine the predictability of Economic Value Added for future performance. For doing this, we employ both relevant information content and incremental information content of measures. Our results generally show that EVA is the best measure for evaluating the performance of firm and management among other measures. Furthermore, we find that EVA has low predictability for performance and FCF has slightly superior predictability compared to other measures.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.251 · 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