MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Potential State Government Practices Impact of the New GASB Accounting Standard for Retiree Health Benefits

2005· article· en· W1982617578 on OpenAlex
Stanley C. Wisniewski

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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Budgeting &amp Finance · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccrualGovernmental accountingAccountingState (computer science)Fund accountingGovernment (linguistics)BusinessOrder (exchange)State governmentAccounting information systemFinancial accountingFinanceLocal governmentPolitical sciencePublic administrationEarnings

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has adopted a new accounting standard for state and local government retiree healthcare benefits that, for many states, will require accrual accounting for such benefits for the first time. The purpose of this paper is to examine the recent reporting practices of state governments with respect to retiree health insurance programs sponsored by the states in order to determine the dimensions of potential state employer practices likely to be changed by the new Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) standard with respect to accounting for such state plans, as well as financing and offering such state plans.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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