MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999886022 · doi:10.1506/907n-mpgu-ehb8-r4lj

An Essay on Accounting's Social Complexity and the Fairness Challenge/ESSAI SUR LA COMPLEXITÉ SOCIALE DE LA COMPTABILITÉ ET LE DÉFI DE LA FIDÉLITÉ DE L'INFORMATION

2005· article· en· W1999886022 on OpenAlex
Michael Gibbins, DWAYNE LOEWEN

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Accounting Perspectives · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTributeRelevance (law)SociologyEpistemologyAccountingPsychologyPositive economicsLawEconomicsPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We are honoured to contribute our ideas to the tribute to Ross Skinner, stimulated by his 1995 CA Magazine article “Judgment in Jeopardy". Our effort is titled “An Essay” because we want to suggest an approach to the problem of judging fairness in financial reporting that Skinner raised and to explore some consequences of that approach. We include no literature references other than to “Judgment in Jeopardy", and occasionally to Homer, because we have developed the ideas in this essay specifically for this tribute and have not relied on others in doing so. There has been an enormous amount of writing about accounting standards, professional judgment, fairness, and other related topics, but rather than exploring all that, we have focused directly on Skinner's concerns and have tried to develop some consequences of those concerns. One of the issues Skinner's article raised is the possibility that a solution to the judgment problem will forever be elusive. Another is the enormous challenge that “fairness” presents in an increasingly complex world. To explore the implications of Skinner's call for judgment, we use a framework based on the relevance, reliability, and validity of accounting information as a means of addressing this challenge and the demands on social consensus that result. Since Skinner was concerned about the application of judgment to real problems, we illustrate our analysis by considering four contemporary accounting debates: principles versus rules, global convergence of accounting standards, the need for a stand‐alone Canadian standard‐setter, and accounting for stock options. We argue that ideological choices, competition among parties in society, and fundamental measurement problems support Skinner's prediction that a solution will remain elusive.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.230 · 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