Measuring Corporate Human Capital Disclosures: Lexicon, Data, Code, and Research Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Human capital (HC) is increasingly important to corporate value creation. Unlike other assets, however, HC is not currently subject to well-defined measurement or disclosure rules. We use a machine learning algorithm (word2vec) trained on a confirmed set of HC disclosures to develop a comprehensive list of HC-related keywords classified into five subcategories (DEI; health and safety; labor relations and culture; compensation and benefits; and demographics and other) that capture the multidimensional nature of HC management. We share our lexicon, corporate HC disclosures, and the Python code used to develop the lexicon, and we provide detailed examples of using our data and code, including for fine-tuning a BERT model. Researchers can use our HC lexicon (or modify the code to capture another construct of interest) with their samples of corporate communications to address pertinent HC questions. We close with a discussion of future research opportunities related to HC management and disclosure. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: B40; C80; M14; M41; M54.
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 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".