MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126041940 · doi:10.1111/1911-3838.12005

The Effect of Reversibility on a Manager's Decision to Record Asset Impairments

2013· article· en· W3126041940 on OpenAlex
Kim Trottier

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset (computer security)Balance sheetValue (mathematics)BusinessPlan (archaeology)Actuarial scienceBalance (ability)EconomicsFinanceComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over time, accounting standards have moved toward presenting more items at fair value on the balance sheet. Consistent with this trend, IAS No. 36 permits an impairment loss on a long‐lived asset to be reversed if the economic value of the asset recovers. This article uses empirical data from an experiment conducted with 118 managers to explore the implication of allowing impairment reversals on a manager's decision to record the loss. Results suggest that permitting reversals significantly increases the likelihood that a manager will record the impairment, especially if the manager has a bonus plan. The bonus plan effect is not caused by the manager's intention to smooth income through impairment reversals, but by his disutility from a bonus forgone if the value of the asset recovers but accounting rules prohibit him from reversing the loss.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient 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 score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.224 · 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