MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783937515 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v10n2p48

Factors Affecting the Audit Delay and Its Impact on Abnormal Return in Indonesia Stock Exchange

2018· article· en· W2783937515 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

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Financial Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock exchangeBusinessAuditProfitability indexNonprobability samplingAccountingAuditor's reportLeverage (statistics)ReputationStock (firearms)FinanceStatisticsMathematicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to study the phenomenon of audit delay that still Occurs in various companies in Indonesia Stock Exchange, Thus affecting the decision of the users of financial statements. This study secondary uses of data in 2009-2015 from 20 companies selected by purposive sampling method, which is to determine the company as a sample according to research needs. This research found that firm size (X1), leverage (X3), and audit opinion (X5) have the significant effect on the audit delay of the company in Indonesia Stock Exchange. While the variable profitability (X2) and reputation audit (X4) have no significant effect on audit delay in companies listed on Indonesia Stock Exchange. Audit delay (Y) does not affect stock price fluctuations, so it does not have a significant impact on the company’s abnormal return (AR) on the Indonesia Stock Exchange.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.217 · 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