MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996804212 · doi:10.1506/e773-5521-86u6-l3m0

The Primacy of “Present Fairly” in the Auditor's Report*

2007· article· en· W1996804212 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Stephen A. Zeff

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConformityAuditor's reportAuditArgument (complex analysis)Positive economicsAccountingGoing concernPolitical scienceDecoupling (probability)Law and economicsEconomicsLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In this paper, the author examines the historical evolution in the United States of the use of the term “present fairly” in the auditor's report, as well as the experience and arguments in the United States and Canada regarding the use of a “two‐part” opinion in the report. He then develops an argument for the adoption of a “two‐part” opinion, decoupling “present fairly” from conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, which would place primary emphasis on “present fairly".

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0150.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting PerspectivesSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207