MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2195052440 · doi:10.19030/jabr.v14i1.5726

Takeovers And Incentives For Earnings Management: An Empirical Analysis

2011· article· en· W2195052440 on OpenAlex
Cintia M. Easterwood

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarnings managementAccrualQuarter (Canadian coin)EarningsIncentiveSample (material)AccountingControl sampleEmpirical evidenceControl (management)BusinessEconomicsDemographic economicsManagementMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study tests the hypothesis that managers of firms that are targets of takeovers systematically increase reported earnings in the quarters immediately preceding and following initiation of the takeover attempt. Using both a modified version of the Jones method and the DeAngelo method, discretionary accounting accruals are examined for a sample of 100 firms that were targets of tender offers between 1985 and 1989, inclusive, and for a control group of nontargets. Results for the quarter ended prior to initiation support the hypothesis. Additional tests performed on the sub-samples of hostile and friendly takeover targets indicate that the results obtained for the sample as a whole are primarily due to the hostile takeover targets. No evidence of earnings management is found in the quarter ended subsequent to initiation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.260 · 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