MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984220243 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2019.11.012

Operating performance and manipulation of accruals

2019· article· en· W2984220243 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wael Mostafa

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccrualComputer scienceBusinessProcess managementAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taking the developing Egyptian market as its focal point, the aim of this research is to contribute to the earnings management literature. Due to the limited data available for the Egyptian market, this research examines earnings management based on the entire operating performance of companies. In particular, the question of whether ineffectively performing Egyptian companies engage in upward earnings management by devising and applying income-increasing policies was investigated. For the purpose of testing for income-increasing accruals, we examine whether discretionary accruals are greater for ineffectively performing firms than for effectively performing firms. The results show that ineffectively performing Egyptian companies are characterized by positive and considerably greater discretionary accruals when comparatively examined against effectively performing companies. A reasonable interpretation of these results is that ineffectively performing companies engage in earnings management practices, with the most likely mechanism being an opportunistic increase in their reported earnings. Overall, the findings of this study show that operating performance is a critical determinant of earnings management. In terms of the implications of these findings, it is necessary for officials within the Egyptian government to enhance the country's corporate governance processes, especially in view of the limitations surrounding law enforcement and investor safeguards.

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 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)0.003
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207