The Public Policy Debate on Investors' Need for Disclosure Regulation: Accounting Historians' Help Wanted?*/ LE DÉBAT PUBLIC SUR LES BESOINS DES INVESTISSEURS EN MATIÈRE DE RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'INFORMATION: FAUT‐IL L'AIDE DES HISTORIENS DE LA COMPTABILITÉ?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper explores how research in accounting history can contribute to the important public policy debate regarding investors' need for disclosure regulation. Accounting, finance, and economics researchers and practitioners argue for, as well as against, disclosure regulation. The debate remains theoretical, however, because empirical studies are virtually nonexistent. This paper reviews five contexts in which accounting historians can begin a search for empirical insights concerning the costs, benefits, externalities, and effects on stakeholders of disclosure regulation. The paper's investigation of the accounting history literature suggests that accounting historians could improve the quality of the debate and help accommodate broader interests or alternative solutions to financial crises.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it