MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599191569 · doi:10.5430/afr.v6n2p59

The Review of Literature on the Role of Earnings, Cash Flows and Accruals in Predicting of Future Cash Flow

2017· article· en· W2599191569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mwila J. Mulenga, Meena Bhatia

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCash flowAccrualCash flow forecastingOperating cash flowCash flow statementEarningsAssertionAccountingBusinessCapital marketEconomicsEconometricsActuarial scienceFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractResearch on the relative ability of accounting information aims in examining the ability of accounting information to predict future cash flow and earnings, based on the assertion given by Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) which states that the earnings and its components have a better predictive power than cash flow itself (FASB,1978 para 44). Many studies have been conducted by various researchers but only few of these studies succeed to match with this assertion. This study aims to provide review on the study related to ability of earnings, cash flows from operations and accruals to predict future cash flows where methodology used in this line of research and presentation of empirical results are discussed. The review provides in depth discussion for the purpose of assisting the researchers to get familiarity with line of financial accounting research investigated capital market based accounting research and also as guidance for future researchers.Keywords: Cash flow from operations, Earnings, Accruals, Prediction, Capital Market Based Accounting Research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207