Forum: Teaching Professional Judgement in Accounting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In May 2005, the University of Lethbridge and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta sponsored the Banff Education Conference entitled Professional Judgement: Can It Be Taught? The opening forum at the conference was a panel discussion on the topic presented by academics and practitioners. The session included an overview of the research literature on expertise as a basis for considering the nature of professional judgement and the implications of various attributes of expertise for accounting education. Past practices and current pressures facing practitioners in exercising good judgement were addressed, including increased complexity of transactions and decreased time to assess problems. The forum also included a discussion of the need for educators to help guide students to develop an understanding of a problem rather than simply seek the answer. There was a discussion of particularly challenging topics for students to grasp in a principlesbased environment. The forum culminated in a question‐and‐answer session involving the panelists and the attendees at the conference. This paper summarizes the presentations and the discussion that took place during the forum. En mai 2005, l'Université de Lethbridge et l'Institut des comptables agréés de l'Alberta commanditaient le congrès de Banff sur l'éducation ayant pour thème la question suivante: le jugement professionnel s'enseigne‐t‐il? Le forum d'ouverture a consisté en une table ronde sur cette question au cours de laquelle enseignants et praticiens ont effectué un survol des publications de recherche sur la compétence qui a servi de point de départ à l'étude de la nature du jugement professionnel et des répercussions de diverses caractéristiques de la compétence sur la formation comptable. Les panélistes se sont penchés sur les méthodes passées et sur les pressions auxquelles sont actuellement soumis les praticiens dans l'exercice d'un jugement éclairé, notamment les difficultés occasionnées par la complexité accrue des transactions et la réduction du temps dévolu à l'évaluation des problèmes. Les panélistes ont également discuté de la nécessité pour les enseignants d'amener les étudiants à mieux comprendre les tenants et les aboutissants d'un problème plutôt que de simplement en chercher la solution. Ils ont également discuté d'enjeux particulièrement importants pour les étudiants dans un environnement axé sur les principes. Le forum s'est terminé par une période d'échange entre panélistes et participants au congrès. Le texte qui suit est un résumé des exposés présentés dans le cadre de ce forum et des discussions qui s'y sont déroulées.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it