MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313057369 · doi:10.19030/jabr.v37i3.10374

Annual Report Readability And Corporate Bankruptcy

2021· article· en· W4313057369 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBankruptcyReadabilityBankruptcy predictionPredictive powerAccountingActuarial scienceBusinessAnnual reportEconometricsVariable (mathematics)EconomicsFinanceComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the relationship between a firm’s annual report readability and its probability of bankruptcy. Findings show that firms with a larger 10-K file size have a higher probability of bankruptcy. More specifically, we suggest that there is a curvilinear relationship between annual report readability and bankruptcy probability. However, this relation is not significant for small firms. We further suggest that annual report readability has incremental power in predicting corporate bankruptcy. While prior accounting and finance research mainly used financial and accounting ratios as predictive variables of firm bankruptcy, we add a new non-financial predictive variable to these models.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.240 · 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