MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4243160482 · doi:10.24124/2015/bpgub1080

Earnings management of publicly listed companies in Nigeria.

2015· dissertation· en· W4243160482 on OpenAlexafffund
Kehinde Sadiq

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Alaska AnchorageUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsEarnings managementStock exchangeAccrualBusinessAccountingTransparency (behavior)RestructuringEarningsShareholderManufacturing sectorExplanatory powerCorporate governanceFinanceEconomicsLabour economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study documents the deterministic factors and the magnitude o f earnings management o f Nigerian firms by applying five discretionary accruals models using the cohort of 62 firms listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) over a period o f 2003-2012.It is observed that the Kothari et al. (2005) performance matched model provides better explanatory power to determine the magnitude of earnings management of Nigerian companies.Using this model, the study finds that the magnitude o f earnings management is 5.02 percent, on average.However, the industry-wise analyses disclose that earnings management is dominant within the manufacturing and energy sector of the Nigerian economy at 48.38 percent followed by the 41.93 percent in the consumer goods sector.The study reveals that the effectiveness of monitoring role by internal and external shareholders is insignificant in improving firm's transparency in financial reporting activities.This finding is indeed useful for Nigerian companies and policymakers to restructure the dynamics o f ownership structure in a way that can reduce the extent o f earnings management in the manufacturing, energy and consumer goods sectors in Nigeria.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.241
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance→French-language works237,207→