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
In this paper, I provide an empirical work in order to test the tax‐adjusted market valuation (residual income) model. Feltham‐Ohlson's (1995) residual income model can be extended by adding corporate tax: firm market value is a function of the bottom line after‐tax accounting data, e.g., book value and after‐tax earnings. Under this tax‐adjusted framework, certain issues are examined: the information from the firm's operating activities is not enough to measure the firm's market value; financial activities also affect firm market value. In particular, abnormal financial earnings are not equal to zero, due to the tax deduction on interest expenses. An empirical analysis, using the financial reporting data of Canadian firms for the years 1994–1999, demonstrates that the current book value of financial assets and operating assets, abnormal operating earnings, and abnormal financial earnings are all relevant to firm market value. The sensitivity tests, which define the corporate tax rates in different ways, do not change the results. The sensitivity test, which uses the financial analysts' forecasts, does not change the results, either. Furthermore, the empirical analysis shows that abnormal financial earnings enhance firm share price more when the firm has lower non‐tax costs, i.e., firm business risk (financial distress) and bankruptcy costs. It supports the previous research on capital structure to the extent that debt financing benefits a firm more when non‐tax costs are lower.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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