Institutions Involved in International Convergence of Accounting Standards : A Neo-Institutional and Historical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the European Union in 2005, many countries including Canada, United States and Mexico have now announced that they will adopt IFRSs for all listed entities from 2011, 2014 and 2012 respectively. Thus, the process of international convergence of accounting standards appears to be entering a culminating stage. There are three theoretical and contextual premises which form the basis of this research. The first is that the process of international convergence of accounting standards (ICAS) has taken place within a highly institutionalized environment characterized by isomorphic pressures directed towards convergence of accounting standards on a worldwide basis. The second premise pertains to the apparent controversy concerning the origins of international accounting harmonization and convergence: American or European. A third contextual premise relates to the lack of prior literature; only a few organizations and institutions have been previously examined and discussed by the research literature. Based on these three contextual premises, the purpose of this paper is double. First of all, we identify the primary institutions and organizations which have been influential in the process of international convergence of accounting standards from the end of the 19th century through the present. Second, employing a framework derived from neo-institutional theory, we seek to explain how this process has been influenced and caused by several primary organizations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".