MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977647903 · doi:10.1080/13563460601068875

The International Accounting Standards Board

2007· article· en· W1977647903 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Political Economy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingFinancial accountingAccounting standardFund accountingConstitutionBalance sheetPolitical scienceNational accountsFinancial statementAccounting information systemEconomicsLawAudit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. The following details are based on the new IASC Foundation Constitution of 21 July 2005, which revises the first constitution of 2000. 2. Conseil National de Comptabilité, ‘Missions du Conseil national de la comptabilité’, http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/minefi/entreprise/comptabilite/index.htm, 2005. 3. Andrew Sheng (Chairman of the IOSCO Technical Committee), Letter to Paul Volcker, Chairman of the IASB, 9 February 2004. 4. http://www.iasb.org/about/ifricmembers.asp. 5. Andreas Noelke, ‘Introduction to the Special Issue: The Globalization of Accounting Standards’, Business and Politics, Vol. 7, No. 3 (2005), pp. 1–7. 6. Peter Jeffrey, ‘International Harmonization of Accounting Standards and the Treatment of Off-Balance Sheet Treatment’, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2002), p. 351. 7. International Accounting Standards (IAS) Regulation (1606/2002, amended 2238/2004), Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksachen 14/23767 (2002). 8. This means that the standards would not apply to subsidiary companies. This would affect the largest companies in the European market and reduce the adjustment pressure on smaller, more national firms. 9. Craig James, ‘International Accounting Standards: Are They Coming to America? (Interview with International Accounting Standards Committee Chairman Arthur R. Wyatt)’, CPA Journal Online, October 1992. 10. See IOSCO Technical Committee, Statement on the Development and Use of International Financial Reporting Standards in 2005 (February 2005). 11. Foreign companies may issue reconciliation statements that explain the differences to US standards. 12. This project is led by the Canadian Accounting Standards Board. See IASB, Short-Term Convergence Project Report Summary (March 2004). 13. For a full discussion of differences between FAS and IAS, see Halsey Bullen & Kimberley Crook, Revisiting the Concepts: A New Conceptual Framework Project (FASB and IASB, 2005). 14. Ibid., p. 8. 15. The positions of the actors are documented in comment letters on the constitutional review found at http://www.iasb.org/current/constitution_docs.asp. 16. All comment letters are available at http://www.iasb.org/current/comment_letters.asp?showPageContent = no&xml = 16_146_79_10082005.htm. 17. See, for example, Antoine Bracchi (French Conseil National de Compabilité), Letter to IASB (Warren McGregor), 29 July 2005. 18. See Ernst & Young, Letter to IASCF (Tom Seidenstein), 11 February 2004, p. 8. 19. IASB Discussion Paper: Management Commentary (October 2005). 20. Sheng, Letter to Paul Volcker. 21. Jeffrey, ‘International Harmonization of Accounting Standards’, p. 350. 22. See IASB Discussion Paper, ‘Management Commentary’, October 2005. The IASB's project has been led by the New Zealand standard setter in cooperation with its British, Canadian and German counterparts since 2002. 23. OECD, OECD Principles of Corporate Governance (OECD, 2004). 24. Sheng, Letter to Paul Volcker, Chairman of the IASB. 25. See, for example, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, ‘Comments on Draft Memorandum of Understanding on the role of accounting standard-setters and their relation with the IASB’, undated, and Bracchi, Letter to IASB. 26. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Letter to Tom Seidenstein (IASB), 22 February 2004; Ernst & Young, Letter to Tom Seidenstein, 11 February 2004; PricewaterhouseCoopers, Letter to Tom Seidenstein, 10 February 2004; KPMG, Letter to Tom Seidenstein, 9 February 2004. 27. IASC Foundation, Draft Due Process Handbook for the IFRIC (May 2006). 28. See comment letters from India and Indonesia. 29. A notable exception was the Italian standard setter, the Organismo Italiano di Contabilità. See letter to the IASB on the draft memorandum, 28 July 2005. 30. IASB, Statement of Best Practice: working relationships between the IASB and other accounting standard- setters (February 2006). 31. I am grateful to Shyam Sunder for this observation. 32. World Bank, Reports on Observance of Standards and Codes: Overview of the ROSC Accounting and Auditing Program, Washington, January 2004. See also Barry Eichengreen, Financial Crises and What to Do About Them (Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 19. 33. Wolfgang Streeck, ‘Introduction: Exploration into the Origins of Nonliberal Capitalism in Germany and Japan’, in Wolfgang Streeck & Kozo Yamamuro (eds), The Origins of Nonliberal Capitalism (Cornell University Press, 2005), pp. 1–38.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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