La evaluación de la value relevancede las informaciones acerca la jerarquía del valor razonable de las compañías brasileñas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the value relevance of fair value Level 1 and 2 is greater than the value relevance of Level 3. This is a descriptive research, quantitative character and data analysis was developed based on the linear regressionmethod. Thesample consists of 50 companies listed in the Index IBrx-100 BM&FBOVESPAthat presentedinformation on the fair value hierarchy.The data collection was conduced in the quarterly financial statementsand explanatory notesfromthe first quarter of 2013to the fourth quarterof 2014. The results for assets at fair value showed that the only variable AVJ3(1,05)have value relevance,positive and statistically significantcoefficient. For liability, PVJ12 (7,64) and PVJ3 (6,92) had relevance value, but the different coefficient of the theoretically expected negative. Responding to the main researchobjective, it is possible to affirm that the value relevance of Levels 1 and 2 is greater than value relevance of Level 3for liabilities. From the results it can also be inferred that investors interpreted the liability amounts to fair valuewrongly, as had already been observed in studies of Gaynor, McDaniel and Yohn (2009) andLachmann, Wöhrmann and Wömpener (2011).
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads 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".