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
ABSTRACT The current study investigates how a university accounting education affects the rationales used by accounting and first-year business students in making ethical decisions, the level of deliberative reasoning they employ, and their ethical decisions. Senior accounting students (with approximately four accounting courses to complete) were found to exhibit higher deliberative reasoning, make more frequent use of post-conventional modes of deliberative reasoning, and make more ethical decisions than first-year accounting students. These results suggest that a university accounting education has a positive effect on deliberative reasoning, on the use of post-conventional modes of deliberative reasoning, and on ethical decisions. There was no difference between the level of deliberative reasoning and ethical decisions of first-year accounting and first-year business students, but there were differences in their modes of deliberative reasoning. These results suggest that first-year accounting and first-year business students may make ethical decisions differently, implying the need for a different emphasis when teaching ethics to these two groups of students.
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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