MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995466166 · doi:10.1108/14013381211286351

Downsizing decisions, intellectual capital, and accounting information

2012· article· en· W1995466166 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

VenueJournal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Downsizing and Restructuring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual capitalCapitalizationOriginalityInvestment (military)BusinessAccountingEconomicsCapital budgetingHuman capitalActuarial scienceFinanceCreativityPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a new method to account for investments in human capital, which the authors have named investment capitalization. This method uses investments in training and hiring of employees as a surrogate for their intellectual capital, capitalizing and amortizing the investment over its useful life. Investment capitalization is compared to the more conventional Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the newer intellectual capital accounting methods. Design/methodology/approach Scenarios comparing the effects of downsizing or organizational performance are used to demonstrate the effects of decisions based on intellectual capitalization and GAAP. Findings Results of the scenario analysis show that the investement capitalization method causes less destruction of intellectual capital during downsizing decisions than does GAAP. Originality/value This paper presents a new method of accounting for intellectual capital and demonstates the benefits of this method when making downsizing decsions.

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)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · 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