MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1950836640

Proposals to Change Lease Accounting: Evidence from Canada and Malaysia

2011· article· en· W1950836640 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roger Hussey, Audra Ong

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeaseAccountingBalance sheetBusinessAccounting information systemAccounting standardBalance (ability)FinanceFinancial accounting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leasing transactions are significant in business activities and both national and international accounting regulations require leases to be classified as either operating or finance leases. The International Accounting Standards Board recently proposed for the present classification to be removed, and for both finance and operating leases to appear on the balance sheet. This paper compares the opinions of 63 qualified accountants in Canada and 54 qualified accountants in Malaysia on the present regulations and the implications of the new standard. The responses from these countries support the substance-over-form model, but raise doubts on its applicability to leasing transactions. The majority of respondents agree on one method for accounting for leases, but support for the removal of finance and operating lease classifications is weaker. An analysis of the data reveals that those who believe the current information is of use are more likely to reject the proposed changes. This suggests that future research should be less concerned with whether users find the information relevant and should be directed towards the nature of user decisions and how the present information is utilised.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance→French-language works237,207→