MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2141412156 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v3n5p216

Management Disclosures on Internal Control in Annual Reports- A Study on Banking Sector: Bangladesh Perspective

2011· article· en· W2141412156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anup Kumar Saha, S. M. Arifuzzaman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)AccountingBusinessControl (management)EconomicsManagementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Even though no regulations require, public limited companies include management reports regarding internal controls in annual reports. Accountants and auditors are in a good position to suggest what degree of reporting is appropriate as they are directly involved in auditing financial statements and reviewing internal controls. This is a unique opportunity for management to discuss issues and concerns not communicated elsewhere in the annual report. From the very beginning there is a growing consensus as to what the content should include: financial statement presentation; purpose, nature and components of internal controls; roles of internal audit, independent auditor and audit committee. A significant number of companies studied acknowledge that “the systems are designed to provide only a reasonable assurance of meeting stated objectives.” If independent auditor’s attestation of such management reports were required; such a mandate would have a significant impact on roles of both the independent auditor and 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance→French-language works237,207→