Big data analytics of corporate internet disclosures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate the extent and characteristics of corporate internet disclosure via companies’ websites as well via social media and networks sites in the four leading English-speaking stock markets, namely, Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA. Design/methodology/approach A disclosure index comprising a set of items that encompasses two facets of online disclosure, namely, company websites and social media sites, is used. This paper adopts a data science approach to investigate corporate internet disclosure practices among top listed firms in Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA. Findings The results reveal the underlying relations between the determining factors of corporate disclosure, i.e. profitability, leverage, liquidity and firm size. Profitability in its own has no great effect on the degree of corporate internet disclosure whether via company websites or social media sites. Liquidity has an impact on the degree of disclosure. Firm size and leverage appear to be the most important factors driving better disclosure via social media. American companies tend to be on the cutting edge of technology when it comes to corporate disclosure. Practical implications This paper provides new insights into corporate internet disclosure that will benefit all stakeholders with an interest in corporate reporting. Social media is an influential means of communication that can enable corporate office to get instant feedback enhancing their decision-making process. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is amongst few studies of corporate disclosure via social media platforms. This study has adopted disclosure index incorporating social media as well as applying data science approach in disclosure in an attempt to unfold how accounting could benefit from data science techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".