Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to ascertain whether the deinstitutionalization of management accounting is better described using structuration theory (techniques are reproduced until replaced) or sedimentation (layering of a new technique upon an earlier technique). Design/methodology/approach An archival study of management accounting at the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) between 1670 and 2005. Findings With the delegitimation of management accounting at the HBC, both structuration and sedimentation processes occurred. However, delegitimation did not mean all of the techniques within a set were eliminated. Several management accounting techniques often continued from one set to another (e.g. indents, outfits, standards of trade) reflecting continued reproduction of existing practices. Sometimes new techniques were added to allegedly make the set more effective, but these overlays did not always replace the former. Research limitations/implications The usual limitations of single firm study generalizations. Practical implications The research provides practitioners with insights into how management accounting practices change. With change some aspects of management accounting will remain the same. Originality/value This case study is based upon a unique primary archival. The HBC has made its accounting and other corporate records available to the public for the period 1670‐1970. The archival data set is supplemented by access to some of the Company's private (and more recent) corporate records, plus interviews with retired and existing senior managers about these changes to their management accounting techniques, up to 2005. Therefore, this study is based upon an extensive, unique and robust longitudinal data set.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".