MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026758029 · doi:10.1080/10242694.2012.691200

ACCRUAL BUDGETING AND DEFENCE FUNDING: THEORY AND SIMULATIONS

2012· article· en· W2026758029 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDefence and Peace Economics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forces CollegeCarleton University
FundersMinistère de la Défense NationaleGovernment of Canada
KeywordsAccrualProcurementInflation (cosmology)Flexibility (engineering)Investment (military)AccountingBusinessEconomicsFinanceActuarial scienceOperations researchEngineeringPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the impact of moving to accrual budgeting on resources allocation in defence. Standard defence budgeting and investment models are used to assess the theoretical implications of accrual budgeting. In addition, a number of simulations are conducted to assess the long-term implications of moving to accrual accounting and budgeting. The result of the simulations shows that changes to deployed operations and other operational shocks will have manageable impacts on readiness but systematic shocks associated with defence unit prices, procurement policies and defence specific inflation will put considerable strain on the defence department's flexibility.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.257
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