An Analysis of the Determinants of Research & Development Voluntary Disclosure by Canadian Firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the determinants of voluntary disclosure on research and development (R&D) activities by listed Canadian firms. Using content analysis, we examine the extent of R&D voluntary disclosure by examining the annual reports from 150 companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). By using a large set of factors that are expected to impact on voluntary disclosure, this study investigates the extent to which firm characteristics (size, leverage, listing status), R&D related variables (R&D intensity, R&D partnership greement, R&D accounting policy) and corporate governance attributes (board independence and the separation of the CEO and Board Chair roles) influence voluntary disclosure on R&D activities. After controlling for industry membership, our results, obtained from a negative binomial regression, show that firm size, R&D intensity, R&D partnership agreement and the separation of the CEO and Board Chair functions have a significant positive impact on the extent of voluntary disclosure on R&D activities. However, the findings reveal that leverage, listing status, R&D accounting policy and board independence are not significant in explaining the level of R&D voluntary disclosure.
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".