The Relationship between Intellectual Capital and Audit Fees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigates whether intellectual capital (IC) is related to audit fees and financial statement restatements in companies listed on the Iraq Stock Exchange (ISE). The present study is a pioneer investigation of this topic in emerging markets. Using a sample of all listed companies on the ISE from 2014 to 2020, the research hypotheses are tested with multiple regression based on panel data and the fixed-effects model. The results demonstrate that intellectual capital is positively and significantly related to normal and abnormal audit fees. Moreover, findings indicate direct and significant relationships between intellectual capital components and normal and abnormal audit fees. This means investment in IC components is likely to determine the auditors’ evaluation of a given client’s riskiness. Thus, an efficient IC investment level might be considered a key factor that companies are expected to consider. The findings of this study provide valuable implications for users of financial statements, analysts, and policymakers with information regarding IC, risk determinants, and audit fees. Policymakers can improve market efficiency by implementing regulations that foster IC disclosure as a risk-determinant factor.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".