Audit committee’s attributes, overlapping memberships on the audit committee and corporate risk disclosure: Evidence from Jordan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to contribute to the literature by examining whether audit committees' attributes affect risk disclosure practiced by Jordanian listed companies. Selecting a sample of 94 Jordanian companies listed on Amman Stock Exchange, the authors carried out a manual content analysis on annual reports to determine the level of risk disclosure. Random effect model was employed in the analysis. Empirical results show that the audit committee size had a positive effect on the level of risk disclosure. However, there was no evidence that the frequency of the audit committee meetings, expertise or overlapping of the audit committee membership were significantly related to the risk disclosure. The findings are important for standard setters to improve their comprehension about the influence of audit committee in disclosing risk information and reconsider the effective monitoring role played by audit committee.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it