An overview of C-SOX and directions for future research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine existing literature, including both academic and practitioner publications, related to Canadian SOX (or C-SOX as it is popularly known). The study discusses the origins of the Act, the underlying motivations for enacting this legislation in Canada and its impact on corporate decisions since its inception in 2003. Design/methodology/approach The principal focus of this literature review is on C-SOX, its inception, reception, compliance and impact in Canada, both from business’ and investors’ critical perspectives. The authors have followed a two-step process to gather all the articles. First, the authors used a keyword search at Google Scholar and ProQuest (e.g. C-SOX, Canadian SOX, Bill 198, etc.) to gather all the articles. Second, the authors retained articles and abstracts that primarily dealt with the background framework and impact of the legislation. It is to be noted that C-SOX was mainly a reactionary legislation following the adoption of US-SOX in 2002. Any discussion of C-SOX is, therefore, incomplete without referencing the literature related to US-SOX. Findings In this review paper the evolution of C-SOX over time in Canada, as well as studies on its impacts and criticisms have been summarized. Based on the extensive research that followed the enactment of US-SOX, the authors also provide suggested research directions related to C-SOX in the future. Research limitations/implications C-SOX has been relatively underexplored and therefore, not much academic work is available presently. This study highlights this gap in the literature with the hope that researchers will devote their energy to understanding the broader ramifications of major legislations such as C-SOX which will potentially also inform future public policy choices. Practical implications This research will help both businesses and investors to understand each other’s perspectives and concerns regarding C-SOX. This paper will also be helpful to policy makers to identify potential areas of improvement in this and future legislative decisions in the future. Originality/value Using a qualitative approach this study combines the development of C-SOX as a legislation in Canada, its overall effectivity/drawbacks and explores the areas it impacts, both positively and negatively, along with criticisms and appreciations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".