MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055120288 · doi:10.1506/2nfq-36pt-e6b1-wrn3

Revenue Recognition: Judgment in the Spotlight / LA CONSTATATION DES PRODUITS: PLEINS FEUX SUR LE JUGEMENT

2005· article· en· W2055120288 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joan E. D. Conrod, Judy Cumby

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Accounting Perspectives · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueHumanitiesPublicsPolitical scienceWelfare economicsEconomicsPhilosophyAccountingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper examines recent history in the area of revenue recognition in financial reporting by Canadian public companies. Revenue recognition is critical because of the profound impact this accounting policy has on the financial statements, but it can be highly judgmental. Restatement of public financial statements is taken as evidence that the reliability of the reported results, as initially presented, is questionable ‐ that is, the financial statements do not fairly reflect the financial position of the organization. We examine recent newsworthy examples of restatement of revenue by Canadian public companies to determine whether this can be traced to faulty professional judgment or to other circumstances, such as deliberate misrepresentation. Les auteures se penchent sur l'histoire récente de la constatation des produits, dans l'information financière communiquée par les sociétés ouvertes canadiennes. L'importance cruciale de la constatation des produits tient aux répercussions profondes qu'a la méthode de constatation sur les états financiers et au fait qu'elle peut faire largement appel au jugement. Les auteures évaluent certains exemples canadiens récents de retraitement des produits qui sont dignes d'être rendus publics, afin d'en déterminer les paramètres.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Accounting PerspectivesSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207