MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121881373 · doi:10.1111/abac.12081

Do Financial Analysts Perform a Monitoring Role in China? Evidence from Modified Audit Opinions

2016· article· en· W3121881373 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAbacus · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEndogeneityCorporate governanceAccountingEquity (law)AuditChinaQuality auditQuality (philosophy)Sample (material)IncentiveExternal auditorControl (management)Capital marketFinanceEconomicsInternal audit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the impact of analyst coverage on the financial reporting quality of firms as reflected by modified audit opinions (MAOs). Using a sample of Chinese listed firms between 2003 and 2009, we find that analyst coverage, which serves as an external governance mechanism, helps to enhance the financial reporting quality of Chinese listed firms. The effect is more pronounced for non‐state‐owned enterprises (i.e., private firms), in that they are more dependent on external equity capital and, therefore, under greater pressure from analysts to provide high‐quality accounting information. Furthermore, analysts play a more effective role for firms with stronger incentives to manipulate financial reports. Our findings are robust to the control of endogeneity issue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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