The Life and Death of the Canadian Contingent Gains and Losses Accounting Standards Project*
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 In April 1994, the Canadian Accounting Standards Board formally approved a new accounting standard for contingent gains and losses. The new standard would have increased the frequency of recording contingent losses, enabled the accrual of some contingent gains, and enhanced disclosures for all contingencies. The changes would primarily have been achieved by requiring management, and their legal advisers, to make predictions, estimates, and disclosures that the existing accounting standard enabled them to avoid. Over two years later, and following numerous changes to the implementation date, the board ultimately decided not to release the new standard, and in July 1999, formally abandoned the contingencies project. This study provides a telling of the standard's genesis, development, and ultimate demise, which should prove instructive to those parties with an interest and a stake in accounting standard setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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