A commentary on Professor Chambers' 1999 paper<i>the poverty of accounting discourse</i>
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Prefatory Note: I've rewritten this Commentary many times, gone off in a variety of very different directions, been (gently?) chided by a research colleague (whose views I respect) for an earlier draft…and now I'm wondering why this all has been so…difficult. When I first received the invitation to prepare a Commentary on Professor Chambers' 'Poverty' article, it seemed likely to be a rather straightforward and enjoyable task; however (taking a cue from 'Poverty', p. 241): 'But things are seldom what they seem.' Perhaps Enron-the-social has confused things for me? Perhaps I have an admiration/skepticism duality of view regarding Professor Chambers, and the resulting dissonance is…disruptive? Perhaps it now seems a bit unseemly to me to write a Commentary when the author of 'Poverty' is deceased and has no opportunity for writing a Rejoinder (but, then, this would preclude Chambers' voice from being accessible to a wider audience)? But, even more chilling, perhaps I'm becoming unsure—in this era of: (a) what Armstrong Citation(2001) calls 'competitive higher education'; and (b) the banality of much accounting research (Neu, Citation2001)—of the possibility of unfettered dialogue on the things that matter in accounting and business education. 2. Gaffikin Citation(2000), for example, while proffering praise for Chambers' aspirations for intellectual rigour in accounting, rejects Chamber's '[belief] in the supremacy of logic and rationality' (p. 295) and 'the possibility of an objectivist knowledge' (p. 295) which relies upon 'a free market ideology as well as notions of market rationality.' (p. 292). Russell Craig (in private correspondence), who was kind enough to read an earlier version of this Commentary, wrote that 'Those who cavil over the polemics of 'Poverty' miss the point. The 'Poverty' article has to be put into the context of Ray's work and life. It was his swansong article. He was bitter and felt defeated. It is a deliberate stir, a rant, if you like…but one intended to get accounting educators to put their minds into gear…and do something about what Ray saw as a critical problem. In this context, I think it is a bit "precious" attacking Ray for his "method"…What matters is not writing articles that are safe in method (and which no-one reads)…but in getting people to think about fundamental issues.' 3. The space limits of a Commentary restrict an analysis of the accounting educational value of Chambers' 'Poverty…', so the following is merely illustrative. 4. For example, under the heading 'Wealth, Income and All That', Chambers uses phrases such as 'These are all commonsense notions' (when referring to 'wealth as dated general purchasing power' and other concepts) and 'the well and systematically developed ideas of economics'. Such use of words subtly 'instruct the reader…to see things in a way determined by the writer' (Hyland, Citation2002, p. 215). 5. Prefatory Note—Epilogue: These words of Chambers perhaps speak to the nub of what made this Commentary so difficult for me…in spite of my trepidation about Chambers-as-theorist, Chambers-as-professor was (and is) right!
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle