MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W645448949 · doi:10.7939/r3-b533-yc35

An experimental investigation of the effect of accounting discretion on the reporting of smooth increasing earnings by managers

2004· article· en· W645448949 on OpenAlex
Hwee-Cheng Tan

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

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscretionAccountingEarningsShareholderBusinessValue (mathematics)Earnings managementEarnings response coefficientAccounting information systemEconomicsFinanceCorporate governanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Value-maximizing managers smooth earnings to communicate their firm’s value to shareholders. When accounting discretion is available, opportunistic managers are able to mimic the earnings patterns reported by value-maximizing managers. This paper reports an experiment that investigates (1) whether a reduction in accounting discretion leads to a separation in earnings series reported by opportunistic and value-maximizing managers, and (2) whether a reduction in accounting discretion impedes the ability of value-maximizing managers to communicate smooth increasing earnings to shareholders when operational smoothing variables are available. The study shows that a reduction in accounting discretion brings about a separation between the two types of managers because low discretion levels affect the reporting ability of opportunistic managers but not that of value-maximizing managers. Value-maximizing managers alter their operational strategies to overcome restrictions in accounting discretion in order to achieve their reporting objective.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.168 · 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