MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1960167435 · doi:10.1111/auar.12049

New Canadian Accounting Standards for Private Enterprises and the Adoption Timing Decision

2014· article· en· W1960167435 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Accounting Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Academic Accounting Association
KeywordsAccountingFinancial statementBusinessControl (management)Set (abstract data type)Private enterpriseEconomicsFinanceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior research into the adoption timing decision of organisations in relation to newly promulgated accounting standards has focused exclusively on public enterprises and used economic cost–benefit frameworks as a main method of analysis. The current study examines the impact of a broader range of factors, including cost–benefit considerations, on the adoption timing decision of private firms with respect to the new set of Canadian accounting standards for private enterprises released in 2009. These factors were organised into a coherent framework using the theory of planned behaviour. The survey findings reveal that several items related to attitudes towards the behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control play a significant role in managers’ adoption behaviour. This study provides relevant insights for private enterprise managers, financial statement users, standard setters and academics.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · 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