Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper assesses the extent to which top and middle management perceive FRQ of companies in Ghana after the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Drawing from the literature, a five-dimension FRQ questionnaire was developed for the study. It was a cross-sectional survey that involved a sample of 500 respondents from top and middle level management across seven industries in Ghana. The findings indicate that, generally top and middle management perceive the qualitative characteristics of FRQ of the Ghanaian companies to be very good. However, Timeliness of FRQ in terms of publishing audited financial reports was the only poorly rated qualitative characteristic. Implications to accounting theory and practitioners are discussed. Moreover, there were differences in respondents’ perception of FRQ according to their work background characteristics. It was found that top and middle management who were professional accountants were more critical in their assessment and therefore rated their perceived FRQ significantly lower than those who were non-accounting professionals. This study contributes to filling the void in FRQ literature regarding accounting information users’ assessment of FRQ in IFRS-compliant countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".