MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Probe into the Reasons of Absence in Accounting Credit among Listed Companies and Study on Countermeasures/L'ORIGINE DU MANQUE D'HONNETETE DE LA COMPTABILITE DES ENTREPRISES COTEES ET L'ETUDE SUR LES CONTRE-MESURES

2010· article· fr· W1954999884 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiao-nan Ni, Hong-jie Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingBusinessAccounting information systemGovernment (linguistics)Positive accountingAccounting standardFinancial accounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Credit is basic principle for accounting and the absence of accounting credit will restrain enterprises from existing and development and influence the healthy operation of national economy. Currently absence in accounting credit is an international problem and the accounting credit of listed companies is suffering from social questioning. In this paper, the authors, based upon the definition and performance of absence in accounting credit among listed companies with the help of systematic thoughts, deeply and completely analyzes both internal and external reasons for the absence in accounting credit among listed companies, and attempt to propose of corresponding countermeasures in punishing absence in accounting credit from the aspect of government regulation, social supervision and self-discipline of enterprises and accounting personnel so as to put forward related references for accounting credit construction among listed companies.Key Words: Listed Company; Absence in Accounting Credit; Probe into Reasons; Countermeasures

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207