MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integrating the Planning and Control of Auditing at the Toronto Transit Commission: (Conclusion)

2001· article· en· W1987902381 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEDPACS · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Transport Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditCommissionControl (management)Function (biology)BusinessInternal auditTransit (satellite)Audit planAccountingEngineeringTransport engineeringJoint auditManagementPublic transportFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article be an in the July issue of EDPACS .That material introduced the function and history of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC); described the or anizational structure of the TTC, the various bodies that audit the TTC, and the development of the internal audit function at the TTC; and considered integrated audit planning and control at the TTC in terms of business units, project establishment, and long-range planning. The material in this issue considers integrated audit planning and control at the TTC in terms of risk assessment, formal planning, and project control; and summarizes the role of ADM PLUS at the TTC.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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