MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121483314 · doi:10.1177/0148558x0401900106

The Effect of Oil and Gas Producers' FRR No. 48 Disclosures on Investors' Risk Assessments

2004· article· en· W3121483314 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel B. Thornton, Michael Welker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Accounting Auditing & Finance · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommodityEquity (law)Sample (material)BusinessSensitivity (control systems)Value (mathematics)Monetary economicsEconomicsFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We hypothesize that oil and gas producers' sensitivity and value-at-risk (VAR) disclosures, mandated by SEC Financial Reporting Release Number 48 (FRR No. 48), convey useful information to investors about commodity betas (defined as the sensitivity of firms' equity price changes to commodity price changes). Consistent with the hypothesis, we find that first-time sensitivity and VAR disclosers experience greater commodity beta shifts at 10-K filing dates than do nondisclosing firms in a matched control sample. To enhance confidence that the observed shifts are associated with FRR No. 48 disclosures, we repeat the analyses in the year before the release was effective, when firms did not disclose sensitivity or VAR. At the prior year 10-K filing dates, we find that firms in the disclosure sample do not exhibit significant commodity beta shifts. We conclude that the results are consistent with FRR No. 48-mandated sensitivity and VAR disclosures providing useful information to investors.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Accounting Auditing & FinanceSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207