Social business, accountability, and performance reporting
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the theory and applications in social business and accountability. Design/methodology/approach The paper develops the theoretical arguments, shows the importance of non‐accounting measures, explores available non‐accounting measures and suggests BSC as an externally validated reporting tool. Findings There is a need to expand the accounting base to non‐financial measures; social business and social enterprises do not have externally validated performance reports and there is no benchmark data to compare performance. Research limitations/implications This is a conceptual and theoretical study. It needs empirical validation. Practical implications Using the suggested measurement and reporting will make public accountability transparent and expand the accountant's social role. It will motivate teaching of social business in accounting. Social implications The study supports social business as a legitimate entity; corporations engaged in social business will be more publicly responsible; the study will encourage investment in social business; small entrepreneurs from the bottom of the society will have an opportunity to participate in the economy; and the poor will participate in the economy, will expand the economy and contribute to social and economic development. Originality/value The paper includes guidelines for implementing the proposed BSC, performance measurements and reporting techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it