The Role of Industry Classification in Estimating Discretionary Accruals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the properties of the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) with three alternatives: Standard Industrial Classification, North American Industry Classification System, and Fama-French classification. First, we demonstrate that GICS results in more reliable industry groupings for financial analysis and research; in particular, we find that estimations of performance-adjusted discretionary accruals (PADA) based on GICS significantly outperform estimates derived using each of the three alternative classifications systems in capturing discretionary accruals. Second, we show that the difference between GICS and the other systems can provide significantly different results, and hence different inferences, in empirical studies that rely on industry classification. Specifically, we revisit findings by Teoh et al. (Journal of Finance 53[6]:1935-1970, 1998) and assess the conclusion that initial public offering (IPO) issuers with high abnormal accruals during the IPO year experience subsequent poorer long-term stock performance than issuers with low discretionary accruals do. We find that this result disappears when PADA estimates are based on GICS. Our results call for serious consideration of using GICS classifications in research, either in the primary analysis or as a necessary corroboration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".