Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure in initial public offerings: case of Canadian firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the determinants of intellectual capital information’s of firms that went through IPO.              Our sample includes 43 firms that IPOs listed in the Toronto Stock Exchange in 2012 of which the prospectuses for the initial public offering are available. Our study, unlike other studies focuses on the issuing prospectuses. The paper applied a disclosure index comprising of 78 items (Bukh and al (2005)) to quantify the amount of information regarding intellectual capital included in the IPO prospectuses of canadian firms. Multiple regression model and Correlation is used. The results revealed that the managerial ownership, the presence of an audit committee and industry are significantly associated with the voluntary disclosure of information about the intellectual capital in prospectuses. While firm size, age, the audit committee’ activity and audit quality do not affect disclosure. The results are interpreted in the light of the increasing importance of disclosing information on intellectual capital to the capital market a in case of IPO and constitute a contribution to the ongoing debate on corporate reporting practices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".