Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This case was prepared by the authors and is intended to be used as a basis for class discussion. The views here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Society for Case Research. The views are based on professional judgment. Copyright [c] 2017 by the Society for Case Research and the authors. No part of this work may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means without the written permission of the Society for Case Research. Introduction Carolyn Jones was a recent accounting graduate who wanted to take the Uniform Certified Public Accountant (CPA) Exam. Like many others who studied for the CPA exam, Carolyn looked for resources to help her prepare. She soon discovered companies that provided review programs and materials charged hefty prices for their services. She knew that she was not the only one who had faced this issue, so she asked some of her classmates how they dealt with it. A few said that they had purchased resources together and shared them. Another said she had bought resources provided by Becker Professional Education--one of the leading companies for these resources--from a third party she found online for less than a quarter of what Becker charged. These both seemed like possible solutions to Carolyn's problem, but she had concerns about them, especially purchasing the resources from another source. Would they be accurate? Would they be up to date? Would it be ethical? Could there be other consequences associated with purchasing these materials from a third party? These were all issues Carolyn needed to consider as she decided what she should do. Carolyn Jones Carolyn Jones was a first-semester graduate student enrolled in a one-year Master of Science program in accounting. Although she had obtained her Bachelor of Science degree in accounting, she knew that she needed to take more accounting courses before she could become a CPA. That was why she decided to pursue the master's degree. Her parents paid her tuition when she was an undergraduate student and continued to support her as she worked on her master's degree and prepared for the CPA exam. She earned a graduate assistantship based on her undergraduate performance, and that paid her tuition; she also received a small stipend each semester. These two sources of funds helped her pay her expenses, but she had little excess income available to her, and her parents had already spent more money on her education than they could afford. The CPA Exam Carolyn investigated the CPA exam and found that the first Uniform CPA examination was administered in 1952, and that the exam had been taken more than one million times since then (American Institute of CPAs, n.d.). She discovered that the exam contained four sections--Auditing and Attestation, Business Environment and Concepts, Financial Accounting and Reporting, and Regulation--and that it represented a total of 14 hours of testing (American Institute of CPAs, n.d.). Her research suggested that the exam was difficult to pass and that, of the four sections, only the Business Environment and Concepts section had a pass rate of greater than 50% in 2015 (American Institute of CPAs, n.d.). Carolyn knew that not all accountants became CPAs. She researched the profession and found that some services, such as auditing and tax preparation, required a CPA license. Other areas of practice did not. However, many public accountants completed the requirements for becoming a CPA, including passing the four sections of the CPA exam, because of the increased opportunities the certification provided. She had read that the CPA designation was considered the gold standard and was often used to differentiate candidates who applied for jobs (Probert, 2014). In addition, the CPA designation gave accountants access to other professionals, professional resources, and guidance when faced with professional and ethical dilemmas. …
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 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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».