MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390270858 · doi:10.1111/jbfa.12778

Do climate risk disclosures matter to financial analysts?

2023· article· en· W4390270858 on OpenAlex
Walid Ben‐Amar, Diana Castro Herrera, Isabelle Martínez

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 Business Finance &amp Accounting · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsMateriality (auditing)BusinessDispersion (optics)AccountingSample (material)Systematic riskActuarial scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper examines whether and when corporate disclosures about a firm's exposure to climate risks matter to financial analysts. More specifically, we investigate the association between climate risk disclosure (CRD) and two properties of financial analysts’ earnings forecasts (accuracy and dispersion). We predict that climate risk financial materiality at the industry level moderates this association. Using a sample of 2184 US nonfinancial firm‐year observations over the period 2010–2016, we show that CRD is associated with higher forecast precision and lower dispersion only when climate risks are perceived by investors as being financially material at the industry level. We also find that while corporate disclosures about transition risks are not associated with financial analyst forecast properties, 10‐K disclosures about climate‐related material physical risks reduce analyst forecast error and dispersion.

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)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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