MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103283199 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2012.07.002

Impact of the corporate governance characteristics and ownership on earnings quality of the Islamic private banks in Iran

2012· article· en· W2103283199 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard, Ali Salehi

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceIslamBusinessEarnings qualityQuality (philosophy)AccountingEarningsFinancial systemFinanceAccrual

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates corporate governance and ownership effects on earning quality in Iranian private banks.The study uses the information of 12 private banks from year 2005 to 2010 using regression analysis based on panel data.Among different factors, the effect of big five shareholder are considered to be significant and positive on earning quality.In addition, the effect of one variable regression test reveals that institutional ownership has positive impact on earning quality.However, the impacts of other variables including percentage of ownership concentration, the size of board of directors, reliance on debt, logarithm of sum of assets, return of assets, logarithm of operating cash flow on earning quality are not meaningful.The result of this survey indicates that institutional ownership plays an important role earning quality simply because institutions normally have the access on professionals to control management.

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)0.004
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207