MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123275056 · doi:10.2308/accr.2006.81.4.749

A Returns-Based Representation of Earnings Quality

2006· article· en· W2123275056 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frank Ecker, Jennifer Francis, Irene Kim, Per Olsson, Katherine Schipper

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Accounting Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsEarnings qualityEconometricsEarnings response coefficientQuality (philosophy)Representation (politics)Post-earnings-announcement driftCapital asset pricing modelPoint (geometry)EconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Asset (computer security)Point estimationPrice–earnings ratioEarnings per shareStatisticsMathematicsFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the properties of a returns-based representation of earnings quality, estimated from firm-specific asset-pricing regressions augmented by an earnings quality mimicking factor. The coefficient on the earnings quality factor (the “e-loading”) captures the sensitivity of the firm's returns to earnings quality in a given year or quarter, analogous to beta as a measure of the sensitivity of returns to market movements. Relative to other proxies for earnings quality, e-loadings can be calculated for larger samples of firms and can be estimated for shorter intervals at any point in time. Along all dimensions examined, we find that e-loadings perform well in capturing notions of earnings quality.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations221
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Accounting ReviewSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207