CAP Forum on E‐Business: The Management of Financial Disclosure on Corporate Websites: A Conceptual Model*
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
ABSTRACT This paper addresses the impact of Internet financial reporting (IFR) on financial accounting theory by incorporating it into the general Gibbins, Richardson, and Waterhouse (GRW) (1990) disclosure‐management framework. The GRW model assumes that the firm has a relatively stable process of disclosure management. This process varies between two positions: one ritualistic and the other opportunistic. These dimensions can coexist in the same firm but, on average, the policy of a firm will be either more ritualistic or more opportunistic. Our survey of the financial information disclosed in traditional financial reporting (TFR) as compared with the website disclosures of a random sample of Canadian companies documents a significant difference between TFR and IFR, as well as a wide variability among the sample firms in their use of IFR content, format, and technology. We interpret this variability in the incremental difference of IFR over TFR as an indication that a firm's ritualistic or opportunistic behaviour under IFR is not different from its behaviour under TFR. Thus, the adapted GRW (1990) conceptual model appears to have the potential to support future research in the management of financial disclosure on corporate websites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it