MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309524078 · doi:10.5430/afr.v11n4p37

ESG and Firm Value

2022· article· en· W4309524078 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCash flowBusinessEnterprise valueSample (material)Value (mathematics)Panel dataStock (firearms)EconometricsOrder (exchange)Variety (cybernetics)Regression analysisPositive relationshipAccountingActuarial scienceEconomicsStatisticsPsychologyFinanceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to investigate the correlations between ESG score and firm value. The paper verifies the hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between ESG score and firm performance, as indicated by levered free cash flow, ROE, current ratio, and quick ratio; also, the study aimed to investigate the relationship between ESG score and firm value improvement, as indicated by stock price of firm. The study applied linear regression to a panel data using Bloomberg ESG disclosure scores from a sample of 115 companies listed in Europe. The time under study was from 2016 to 2020. Findings suggest a positive and significant relationship between the variables. Research findings will help firms’ stakeholders to improve their awareness of the impact of ESG disclosure on the performance of the firm. The findings, which support the positive relationship between ESG and firm performance, can be used to supporting or even completing other studies with similar or same concept, after necessary adjustments have been made. Data used for this study need to be subjected to more statistical tests in order to establish a more robust validity and reliability. It is necessary to acquire further strengthened data and assume a variety of conditional situations. It is expected that subsequent studies can use larger samples and diversified by sector, a broader geographic base, and a multi-faceted analysis.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.268 · 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