The Comparative Value Relevance of Donation and Advertising Expenditure Before and After the Global Financial Crisis in Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the comparative value relevance of donation and advertising expenditures before and after the 2008 global financial crisis in listed Korean stock markets between 2004 and 2011. To test whether the value relevance of donation and advertising expenditures is associated with the 2008 global financial crisis, this paper first divides its sample into pre- and post-December 31, 2007, periods and then divides those into several subgroups to observe value relevance changes according to the characteristics and conditions of listed firms in the Korean stock markets. This paper’s empirical results offer important evidence concerning the comparative changes in the value relevance of advertising and donation expenditures. First, advertising and donation expenditures have positive value relevance before and after the global economic crisis and show a positive association with firm value in every subsample group divided according to firm characteristics. Second, the results show significant time-period differences in the value relevance of donation and advertising expenditures before and after the global financial crisis. The results also show that value relevance changes according to the circumstance and contexts of the firms (e.g., KOSPI vs. KOSDAQ, large vs. small and medium, high technology vs. low technology).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".