MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013179690 · doi:10.1177/1032373212443225

Accounting for a nation’s beginnings: Challenges arising from the formation of the Dominion of Canada

2012· article· en· W2013179690 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

VenueAccounting History · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Guelph
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsDominionPoliticsAccountingAccounting information systemQuality (philosophy)Political sciencePublic administrationSociologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an historical study of the accounting issues and challenges arising from the creation of a new nation, the Dominion of Canada. We document the issues associated with combining the accounting of three separate pre-confederation political entities and describe how the first accounting system for Canada was put in place. The study identifies significant challenges resulting from a lack of formal accounting policies, the settling of accounts between the provinces and the new dominion, accounting for the division of responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments, and the poor quality of accounts from the former provinces. This study reveals that Canada’s first accounting system was not developed specifically for the new nation despite the creation of a new political entity, but was inherited from one of the former pre-confederation provinces.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.157 · 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