A Study on the Settling-up of Quarterly Earnings in the Insurance Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzed how the unique accounting method and accounting environment of insurer different from non-financial companies affect earnings pattern of quarterly earnings by focusing on the settling-up effect using data from the past 34 quarters of domestic insurers. And the analysis was conducted by testing whether 4th quarter's degree of response between sales and expenses differs from other quarters. As a result of the analysis, it was found that the settling-up effect occurred in the insurance industry and these effect tended to be differentiated in the 4th quarter compared to interim quarters, and this differentiation was intensifying in the non-life insurance industry. These results are interpreted to be due to the difference between in interim and annual statements and the use of cash and accrual base accounting. In addition, this is interpreted to be more pronounced in the non-life insurance industry, where the complexity of payment process and the probability of earnings managements related to the loss reserves are high. The results are significant in that it compares and analyzed the characteristics of insurance accounting information in the transitional stage of converting to full accrual basis with the adoption of IFRS 17 and predicts changes in insurance accounting information.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".