Chief executive officer remuneration disclosure quality: corporate responses to an evolving disclosure environment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examine chief executive officer remuneration disclosure in Australia from 1998 to 2004. Disclosure was first required by the Company Law Review Act 1998 ( CLRA98 ). Despite CLRA98 's clear intentions, firms generally failed to comply until the requirements were formalized by Director and Executive Disclosures by Disclosing Entities ( AASB1046 ), issued in 2004. For a sample of 124 firms, we find significant improvements in disclosure concurrent both with CLRA98 and AASB1046 . We also find firm size, corporate governance, auditor quality, cross‐listing status and public scrutiny to be significant explanations of disclosure. Our results indicate that high quality disclosures will only come about through detailed, black letter requirements and that principle‐based legislation involving interpretative discretion is unlikely to produce the desired level of disclosure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it