Taking Account of History: How Much and How Little Have Changed in a Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1904 an international Congress of Accountants took place in St. Louis. This first drew representatives not only from across the United States but also from England, Scotland, Holland and Canada. This congress a major event in the formative years of the U.S. accounting profession, according to the Journal of Accountancy's AICPA Centennial issue, published in 1987. The rise of large corporations in the decades before the congress--and some spectacular panics and stock market crashes--underscored the importance of proper accounting procedures and financial reporting. This gathering of accountants at the dawn of the new century was intended as an event at which the attendees could consider what kinds of services and procedures businesses required and what the profession must do to meet those needs. It took place against the backdrop of the St. Louis World's Fair, which attracted nearly 20 million visitors to 1,500 exhibit buildings where they could sample groundbreaking inventions that ranged from the wireless telegraph to the ice cream cone. look back at that first meeting shows not only some of the origins of the profession but also the importance of the issues being discussed. In a profession that was still inventing itself in many ways, the attendees were debating topics such as auditing, accounting for profits and government issues, all of them timeless themes. In addition, the proceedings show the quality of ideas being generated by those revolved. At a time long before codified generally accepted accounting principles or auditing standards, participants were developing and discussing some of the standards and procedures that would form the basis of professional practice. A century is a good time to take stock, notes Gary Previts, CPA, professor of accountancy and associate dean of undergraduate programs at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Previts says many of those who attended the first world congress would become important figures in the profession. What stands out is how many names are familiar and still recognized today as potential or actual Accounting Hall of Fame members, says Dale Flesher, CPA, a professor at the University of Mississippi's school of accountancy. In addition, in reviewing the proceedings of this first gathering, I am impressed that it is a very important portfolio about the ideas of practice. The ideas reflect fundamental issues that face us Flesher says. This article highlights that pivotal event. KEY THEMES Consolidating the profession. An important but unspoken agenda of the congress was to try to find a way to organize the profession nationally. Great Britain had a more highly developed accounting profession at the time and many British accountants--such as Arthur Lowes Dickinson--who had come to the United States to practice became very influential, but the American accountants wanted to build their own profession. Federal recognition of the profession of the public accountant can be secured only by a strong representative national body speaking with one voice from Maine to California, the congress's chairman, Joseph Sterrett, said in his opening remarks. Many of the people behind the congress hoped to lay the groundwork for a single recognized national organization, but some in attendance had reservations about the idea. There were the same kinds of tensions we see today, between large and small firms and between global and regional organizations, Previts says. People learn how to manage these issues, but they don't necessarily solve them. One year after the congress, the movement toward a single national organization was strengthened by a merger of two early national bodies, the Federation of Societies of Public Accountants and the American Association of Public Accountants, based on discussions that had begun at the congress. burgeoning market economy. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".