The effect of corporate social responsibility dimensions on accounting information quality: Empirical study in Saudia Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accounting studies neglected to link corporate social responsibility to accounting information, the theoretical background revealed the study gap and the paper referred to it in the question: Do the corporate social responsibility CSR dimensions affect the accounting information quality? The study aimed to reveal the effect of corporate social responsibility dimensions (economic, ethical, legal, and philanthropic) on accounting information quality (relevance and reliability) in banks in the Riyadh Governorate in Saudi Arabia. The researcher used a questionnaire to collect data from the study sample, and the data analysis was done using SPSS and smart partial least squares (pls), and its reliability and validity have been confirmed. Result revealed a positive effect of CSR (economic, ethical) dimension on the relevance of accounting information, a negative effect of CSR Legal dimension on the relevance of accounting information, and no effect of CSR philanthropic dimension on the relevance of accounting information, a positive effect of CSR (ethical, philanthropic) dimension on the reliability of accounting information and no effect of CSR economic and legal dimension on the reliability of 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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".