MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040397590 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v11n3p1

Experiences to Voluntarily Adopt Malaysian Business Reporting System MBRS: A Case Study of SMPs

2020· article· en· W3040397590 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Azleen Ilias, Erlane K Ghani, Nasrudin Baidi, Zubir Azhar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and XBRL
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Tenaga NasionalUniversiti Teknologi MARATenaga Nasional Berhad
KeywordsXBRLBusinessBusiness reportingEnforcementStakeholderIncentiveData collectionCommissionPromotion (chess)AccountingMarketingKnowledge managementProcess managementPublic relationsFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) has established the eXensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) which is the Malaysian Business Reporting System (MBRS). This study examines the technological, organisational and environmental factors influencing the usage of MBRS among the practitioners. Using interview as the data collection among 12 respondents which are practitioners from selected Corporate Secretaries fom small medium practices (SMPs). Data from interview has analysed based on descriptive coding and pattern coding that developed by Technological, Organisational and Environmental (TOE) theory using the Atlas.ti. The findings of this study indicates seven (7) technological factors which are assurance for data quality, relative advantage and the availability of regulator’s platform and system, limited tools and software, compability of format, compatibility of content and how the mTool could provide ease of use to the corporate secretary. In related to organisational factors, There are seven (7) challenges that can be considered discovered from organisational which are challenge to face attitude of preparers, limited practitioners that have own sufficient skills and knowledge, limited capable resources and preparers to manage the MBRS. In addition, there are six (6) environmental factors which are the technical support from regulator, the provision of incentive that should be given to the practitioners or SMPs, the effective strategies for promotion and educate practitioners method of voluntary submission. However, the lack of readiness on the use MBRS among trading partners and other stakeholder involvement would also challenge the adoption of MBRS. Therefore, this TOE factors would be important to practitioners to be ready on the enforcement of MBRS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicFinancial Reporting and XBRLFrench-language works237,207