MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123660970

The Effect of Mandatory XBRL Reporting Across the Financial Information Environment: Evidence in the First Waves of Mandated U.S. Filers

2012· article· en· W3123660970 on OpenAlexaff
Joung W. Kim, Jee‐Hae Lim, Won Gyun No

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and XBRL
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXBRLBusinessBusiness reportingAccountingCorporate governanceVolatility (finance)Information asymmetryStock (firearms)EarningsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the effect of mandatory XBRL disclosure across various aspects of the financial information environment. Our findings show an increase in information efficiency, a decrease in event return volatility, and a reduction of change in stock returns volatility for 428 firms (1,536 10-K and 10-Q filings) post-XBRL disclosure. In addition, this study shows that XBRL mitigates information risk in the market, especially when there is increased uncertainty in the information environment. Our results are robust to various alternative specifications and research modifications such as a matched-pair control (326 XBRL versus 326 non-XBRL firms), current stock market condition, potential earnings releases, and corporate governance. This study contributes to the literature by systematically documenting evidence of how mandatory XBRL disclosure decreases information risk and information asymmetry in both general and uncertain information environments. Our evidence could potentially assist the SEC in their effort to expeditiously assess the benefits of XBRL.

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)0.057
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 score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicFinancial Reporting and XBRLFrench-language works237,207