MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985431654 · doi:10.1108/02686900310500514

Audit of accounting program on oral communications apprehension: a comparative study among accounting students

2003· article· en· W1985431654 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagerial Auditing Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApprehensionAuditCommunication apprehensionAccountingRemedial educationManagement accountingCommunication skillsPromotion (chess)PsychologyBusinessMedical educationPolitical scienceMathematics educationMedicineAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Business research identified communications apprehension as a problem for improving communication skills. Research has indicated that communication skills are very important to employers in hiring and promotion decisions. This study provides empirical evidence as to whether the accounting program has contributed toward lowering the level of communications apprehension on two groups of accounting students: those who are entering the program and others who are exiting the program. Findings show that there is no significant difference between the level of communications apprehension between the groups when they entered the program and the time when they exited the program, raising a question of the potency of the accounting program in alleviating the communications apprehension of accounting students. Some remedial measures have been suggested.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.345 · 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