MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2511907259 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n10p33

The Association between Audit Committee Members’ Multiple Directorship, Ownership and Earnings Management in Saudi Arabia

2016· article· en· W2511907259 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed Alshetwi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudit committeeAccountingEarnings managementBusinessAuditCorporate governanceSample (material)Chief audit executiveEarningsStock (firearms)Joint auditFinanceInternal audit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the association between the multiple directorship and stock ownership of audit committee members and companies’ earnings management. Based on a sample of 98 Saudi nonfinancial listed companies, this study finds that the multiple directorship of audit committee members is not statistically associated with a reduction in the level of earnings management; however, the stock ownership of audit committee members is significantly related to a reduction in the level of earnings management. The results of this study add to the field of knowledge as they provide evidence on the alignment hypotheses from less developed countries (i.e. Saudi Arabia). Furthermore, these findings are useful to understand the current situation of the multiple directorship and stock ownership of audit committee members and their role in improving the monitoring system and reducing earnings management in countries with special characteristics like Saudi Arabia (i.e., with a less developed legal system and new corporate governance regulations).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business Research→Same topicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance→French-language works237,207→