MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165888390 · doi:10.2308/accr.2005.80.4.1211

Accounting for Software Development Costs and Information Asymmetry

2005· article· en· W2165888390 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Accounting Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation asymmetryBusinessSoftwareIndustrial organizationSoftware developmentAccountingAsymmetryCapital (architecture)Computer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I investigate the impact of implementing SFAS No. 86, which provides an exception to the GAAP requirement of the immediate expensing of research and development (R&D), on information asymmetry. Using bid-ask spread and share turnover as proxies for information asymmetry, I find that after the introduction of SFAS No. 86, information asymmetry decreases for software firms relative to that of other high-tech firms. Within the software industry, I find that information asymmetry is significantly lower for firms that capitalize (capitalizers) than for those who expense (expensers) software development costs. Thus, accounting for software development costs per SFAS No. 86 reduces information asymmetry and, consequently, the cost of capital. As well, investors' uncertainty about the future benefits of software development costs is reduced when firms capitalize these costs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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