MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123569849 · doi:10.2308/accr.2008.83.3.593

International GAAP Differences: The Impact on Foreign Analysts

2008· article· en· W3123569849 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

VenueThe Accounting Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingSample (material)BusinessAccounting standardEconomicsAccounting information systemFinancial accounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the relation between differences in accounting standards across countries and foreign analyst following and forecast accuracy. We develop two measures of differences in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for 1,176 country-pairs. We then examine the impact of these measures of accounting differences on foreign analysts. In so doing, we utilize a unique database that identifies the location of financial analysts around the world, creating a sample that covers 6,888 foreign analysts making a total of 43,968 forecasts for 6,169 firms from 49 countries during 1998–2004. We find that the extent to which GAAP differs between two countries is negatively related to both foreign analyst following and forecast accuracy. Our results suggest that GAAP differences are associated with economic costs for financial analysts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.235 · 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