Beyond Disclosure: A Comprehensive Scoring Scale for Evaluating Integrated Reporting Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This research article aims to develop a structured and comprehensive scale for integrated report quality assessment. In fact, it fills the gap in the literature by providing a valid scorecard system through which the quality of integrated reports is measured against the predefined constructs of the IIRC framework and other conceptual factors. The methodology, informed by the scale development process proposed by Churchill, therefore adopts a mixed‐methods approach through literature reviews, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. Evidence from 181 and 307 respondents in the United Kingdom, Canada, and India attests to the reliability and use of this scale. The final scale consists of four dimensions that measure: (1) IR content elements, (2) fundamental IR principles, (3) guiding principles, and (4) other determinants of report quality. The results emphasize transparency, strategic focus, and stakeholder engagement as central characteristics of good integrated reporting. The scale is a systematic tool for regulators, managers, and investors to improve report quality, enhance transparency, and support informed decision‐making in corporate governance, integrated, and sustainability reports.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".