Quality and Innovations in the Financial Reporting as a Way to Increase Attractiveness for Institutional Investors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the present stage of global development there is a transition from understanding the financial statements of enterprises not only as a source of quantitative indicators of the company's development but also as a reputable tool for its reliability and readiness for transparent relations with counterparties. Investment decision-making has always been characterized by balancing profitability and reliability of capital investment. Accordingly, this requires increasing emphasis on the quality and complexity of companies' financial reporting, allowing you to maximize the amount of information provided to potential investors. The article aims to test the hypothesis about the impact of qualitative characteristics of financial reporting on the attractiveness of companies to investors. The study analyzes the evolution of financial reporting, the causes and consequences of innovative approaches to its preparation, and the dissemination of national and international standards. The second stage of the analysis involves modeling the impact of financial reporting and investment attractiveness of enterprises at the national level through economic and mathematical modeling (the specificity of the model is determined by testing the quantitative input data). According to the results of the study of financial reporting quality indicators, the general parameter is the strength of auditing and reporting standards, which the World Economic Forum assesses based on a survey of business leaders. Indicators of the country's investment attractiveness calculated by the World Bank's global statistical base were chosen as dependent variables. Calculations are performed on panel data for a sample of more than 20 countries (Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Estonia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Morocco, Mexico, Mongolia, New Zealand, Romania, Turkey, United States) over ten years. The obtained results of calculations are the basis for finding ways to improve further the quality of financial and nonfinancial disclosure of companies to increase their competitiveness in the investment market.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".