MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185053505

The Awareness of the Extensible Business Reporting Language(XBRL) In Malaysia

2014· article· en· W2185053505 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

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and XBRL
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXBRLBusiness reportingAccountingBusinessComputer sciencePerspective (graphical)Knowledge management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study had explored the Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) among various stakeholders from a financial reporting perspective. In addition, the impact of the benefits on users, organization and preparers might vary according to the culture, country or financial regulations. Thus, this research will focus on Malaysia since Malaysia is multi-cultural and the adoption of XBRL can be considered as a new development. Pertaining to this research, it is important to understand the concept of a new reporting technology and the way XBRL will provide interactive data. The awareness and intention to adopt the XBRL will resume effectively once users, preparers and regulators are able to understand the whole concept of XBRL. This research is considered significant in order to explore the readiness and awareness of new reporting technology in Asia, particularly in Malaysia. This study found only a few respondents was fully aware of XBRL, while the majority of respondents were unaware about XBRL. Besides awareness, the study found that there are approximately 67.2% of respondents who are likely to investigate the XBRL technology, which indicates that there is a possibility that XBRL will be more significant and eventually accepted by stakeholders. This study found that approximately 3.1% understood fully what XBRL is and 18% understood the basic concepts.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · 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