Bad apples, bad barrels and bad cellars: a “boundaries” perspective on professional misconduct
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Parmalat – formerly one of the largest dairy companies in the world – went bankrupt on December 24, 2003, leaving behind a “hole” of 14 billion euros, a sum almost twice the company's 2002 sales turnover. Subsequent investigations revealed that the company's financial accounts had consistently and deliberately been falsified for each of the thirteen years that Parmalat was listed on the Milan Stock Exchange. During those years, professionals – who are supposed to act as gatekeepers (Coffee 2005, 2006) – did not (or, in some cases, decided not to) see what was going on. Deloitte – which was auditing the company's group accounts – did not raise any concerns until October 2003 when they issued a disclaimer on the company's accounts, as they could not determine the amount of a fund held by a subsidiary. Standard and Poor's constantly rated the company at the investment grade and even improved its outlook only a few months before the company defaulted. Securities analysts, similarly, remained positive on Parmalat's shares until the company was already on the verge of bankruptcy; only a few days before the fraud was detected, fifty-seven of sixty-six of their equity research reports recommended buying or holding the company's shares. Enron's story, one of the biggest scandals in American history, is not much different, although it took place in the supposedly more developed US stock market. As in the Parmalat story, professionals did not effectively perform their ascribed roles. Arthur Andersen, the company's auditors, consistently approved Enron's accounts without raising any concerns and failed to inform “the company's audit committee about both the accounting policies in use at Enron and the unusual transactions the company had conducted” (Batson Report 2003: 40–41). Management consultancies such as McKinsey, which advised Enron, endorsed its strategic repositioning and praised its “asset light” strategy (Kipping, Kirkpatrick, and Muzio 2006). Not until four days before bankruptcy was declared on December 2, 2001, did rating agencies lower their ratings of the company to below the mark of a safe investment. As late as October in the same year, fifteen securities analysts rated Enron a “buy” and twelve of them recommended it as a “strong buy.”
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,027 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».