Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, the most important institution in the movement to harmonize international accounting and reporting practices, both in terms of the range of issues addressed and the number of states and firms affected, is the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) (Nobes 1991). The IASC was established in 1973 by the professional accounting bodies of nine countries - Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Ireland (jointly), and the United States.The paper is divided into four sections. Section one describes and critiques the structure of the IASC. Section two describes and critiques the process used by the lASC to develop accounting standards. Section three assesses the strategies used by CARICOM states to adopt IASC standards as national accounting policy. The final section of the paper offers suggestions for reforming the accounting policy-making process used by CARICOM states and the international accounting standard-setting machinery to better serve the various stakeholders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".