Pouvoir et normalisation : la perception des utilisateurs canadiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose un cadre illustrant l’activité de normalisation comptable canadienne, telle que perçue par les utilisateurs. Les dimensions du cadre de pouvoir de Hardy (1994) sont adaptées au contexte de l’activité de normalisation, puis raffinées à la suite d’entrevues menées auprès d’utilisateurs d’états financiers. Les résultats révèlent entre autres que les sources comparatives de pouvoir, les stratégies utilisées, l’utilité des normes comptables, le souci de l’intérêt public du normalisateur, les caractéristiques de la procédure établie, l’existence de comités non décisionnels, les caractéristiques personnelles des membres des conseils ainsi que le rôle d’établir les normes attribué à la profession comptable représentent des catégories pertinentes pour illustrer l’activité de normalisation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".