MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385467744 · doi:10.58970/ijsb.2157

Value Relevance of Climate Change Disclosure: An Empirical Study on The Oil & Gas Companies Listed on Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX)

2023· article· en· W4385467744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amirus Salat

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Science and Business · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock exchangeAccountingBusinessIndex (typography)Climate changeValue (mathematics)Relevance (law)Empirical researchStock (firearms)FinancePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study looks at how important it is for oil and gas companies which are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) to disclose information on climate change. I create a disclosure index by doing a content analysis of 58 firms' publicly accessible documents. As an independent variable, the Disclosure Index Score derived from the content analysis of 58 corporations is taken into consideration. As a stand-in for business value, the market to book assets ratio is employed. The relationship between corporate value and the degree of climate change disclosure is investigated in this study. According to empirical data, investors weigh how much information has been disclosed on climate change when determining a company's market value. Because it looks at the connection between climate change declarations and businesses' value, this study adds to the body of knowledge in environmental accounting. Practically speaking, the results of this investigation will give the Canadian Securities Administrator (CSA) an understanding of how disclosures about climate change are made and give them a framework for drafting associated disclosure requirements. Additionally, it should motivate Canadian oil and gas corporations to reveal their GHG emission reduction plans and strategies.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Science and BusinessSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207