MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fair Trade Community Café

2010· article· en· W1822362569 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Karen Lightstone

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting Education and Careers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBookkeepingIncome statementBalance sheetTheme (computing)Nova scotiaService (business)Statement (logic)Small businessBusinessMarketingFinancial statementAccountingFinanceComputer scienceSociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This case concerns the real operations of a café in a small town in Nova Scotia, Canada. It is a second location of a theme restaurant, with the first location successfully operating for a number of years. The owner of the first location, and senior partner of the second café, is available for advice but does not participate in the day‐to‐day operations of the second location; there are two junior partners who run the business. The focus is on the financial statements generated by an external bookkeeping service. The income statement reports a significant loss, and some of the accounts on the balance sheet and income statement do not make sense for this type of business. Simple ratio and variance analysis provides information for students to determine where problems lie. The case presents a good opportunity for students who have a basic understanding of financial statements to read a set of real statements generated by a bookkeeping service. Not all transactions are logical for a small café, although the financial information is from a real café in operation. The case also contains industry information on the operations of small food and drinking businesses located in Nova Scotia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1080.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting PerspectivesSame topicAccounting Education and CareersFrench-language works237,207