MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415126059 · doi:10.32479/ijefi.20171

Board Characteristics and Integrated Reporting Quality in Nigeria and South African Manufacturing Firms

2025· article· en· W4415126059 on OpenAlexaff
Ganiyat Dolapo Akanni, Rafiu Oyesola Salawu, Omobolade Stephen Ogundele, Najeem Bamidele Ewesesan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Financial Issues · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsTD Bank Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceQuality (philosophy)Nonprobability samplingManufacturingManufacturing sectorTransparency (behavior)Independence (probability theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of board characteristics on the quality of integrated reporting has raised concerns about governance effectiveness, transparency and stakeholder trust in emerging economies. This study, therefore, examined the effects of board characteristics on integrated reporting quality on listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria and South Africa. The study explored a purposive sampling technique to select 40 manufacturing firms in each country. The data for the study originates from the annual reports and accounts of the selected manufacturing firms from 2012 to 2023. The study utilized panel feasible generalized least squares regression in analyzing the data. The findings from the analysis reveal that board size, board meeting, board shareholding and board independence have significant effects on integrated reporting quality as it relates to the Nigerian manufacturing firms, while the same for South African manufacturing firms, except for board meetings. The study concludes that board attributes have a significant effect on the integrated reporting quality of manufacturing firms in both countries. The study recommends, among others, that both countries should strengthen the role of independent directors through better training and oversight to improve reporting outcomes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Financial IssuesSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207