Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study was "The impact of conservatism in financial reporting on the relationship between Managerial Overconfidence and the accuracy of profit forecast in banks listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange during 2010 to 2014".The method of implementation: in this regard, Managerial Overconfidence and conservatism are independent variables and the accuracy of profit forecast in banks is the dependent variable.The statistical population of the research is 17 banks over the above 5 year that due to the limited number of banks listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange all the banks including 85 samples were selected.A descriptive correlational research method was used with the practical approach.Methods of Library research and document mining of financial statements were used for gathering information respectively in the fields of theoretical foundations and hypotheses testing.In general, correlation method and multiple regressions is the statistical method that was used in this research.Conclusion: based on the results of the first research hypothesis, conservatism in financial reporting strengthens the impact of managerial overconfidence on the accuracy of profit forecast.According to the second research hypothesis, managerial overconfidence has a reverse and significant impact on the accuracy of profit forecast in the banks listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.956 | 0.960 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".