Use of Corporate Disclosures to Identify the Stage of Blockchain Adoption
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
SYNOPSIS Several studies have pointed to the transformative effects of blockchain on a wide spectrum of firms, industries, and professions. Despite the arguable consensus within the business community that blockchain will have a real impact on the way firms do business, views diverge when it comes to the timing of diffusion (i.e., when blockchain will achieve mass adoption). We propose that information gathering helps potential adopters form expectations regarding payoffs from blockchain adoption. Information-gathering activities and the resulting information sources, such as web searches, news articles, book titles, and corporate disclosures, can proxy the expectations of potential adopters. Corporate disclosures directly reflect firms' expectations and interests in the new technology. We leverage the corporate disclosure data from the SEC Edgar database to identify the current stage of blockchain adoption. Our analysis shows that while blockchain adoption is still nascent, the focus has been shifting from cryptocurrencies to business applications. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: M15.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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