MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164870459 · doi:10.5430/afr.v3n4p45

Investment Opportunities and Audit Report Lags: Initial Evidence

2014· article· en· W2164870459 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditInvestment (military)BusinessScope (computer science)EarningsAccountingJoint auditWork (physics)LagExternal auditorFinanceInternal audit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the association between audit report lag (ARL) and the level of investment opportunity. High investment opportunities have been perceived to increase audit risk. External auditors, therefore, have to increase the required scope of audit work, which is expected to lead to longer audit report delays. The paper is motivated from (1) the effect of audit report lag on the timeliness of financial reporting and thus the market reactions to late earnings releases; and (2) the limited research on investment opportunities. We find that firms with high investment opportunities are more likely to have longer audit report lags. Our results extend the contemporary research on ARL and investment opportunities. The paper also provides useful information for firms’ management and external auditors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.230 · 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