MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2125481890 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n24p293

Studying the Relationship between Company Size, Earnings Management in Initial Public Offerings of Stock and Performance of the Companies Listed on Tehran Stock Exchange

2015· article· en· W2125481890 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohsen Rahbar, Davood Khodadady

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitial public offeringStock exchangeBusinessEarnings managementEarnings per sharePanel dataStock (firearms)Listed companyAccountingEarningsFinanceEconometricsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study is to explore the relationship between company size, earnings management in initial public offerings of stock and performance of companies listed on Tehran Stock Exchange during the time period of 2003 - 2012. In this study company size has been considered as an independent variable in order to explore and study its effect on earnings management and stock performance of companies in initial public offerings. In this study, in which panel data with fixed effects were used, results obtained from analyzing companies' data by using multivariate regression tests at 95% confidence level indicated that there is a reverse and significant relationship between company size and the extent of earnings management in initial public offerings (IPO). On the other hand, the results indicated that company size has a direct effect (p<0.01) on the relationship between earnings management in initial public offerings (IPO) and short- and long-term performance of stock price of the company.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance→French-language works237,207→