The Legacy of the <i>Journal of Accounting Case Research</i> (1992–2007)/L'HÉRITAGE DE LA <i>JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING CASE RESEARCH</i> (1992–2007)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper studies the output of the Journal of Accounting Case Research (JACR) from its inception in 1992 through its amalgamation into the CAAA's journal Accounting Perspectives in 2007. JACR had the important distinction of being the only periodical devoted solely to publishing accounting cases. This paper summarizes JACR's output by topic, specific accounting field of study, and targeted audience, as well as information on authors and their academic institutions. These analyses suggest that JACR promoted diversity in the scholarship of accounting education, produced valuable learning aids, and provided important publication opportunities for scholars with an interest in the development of instructional cases. RÉSUMÉ L'auteur se penche sur l'héritage de la publication Journal of Accounting Case Research (JACR), depuis sa création en 1992 jusqu'à sa fusion avec la publication de l'ACPC Perspectives comptables, en 2007. Fait important, le JACR se caractérisait par son statut de seul périodique consacré exclusivement à la publication d'études de cas en comptabilité (Weinstein, 2005). L'auteur présente sommairement le patrimoine du JACR selon les sujets, les domaines d'études précis de la comptabilité et les publics visés, de même que les données relatives aux auteurs et aux établissements universitaires auxquels ils sont attachés. Ces analyses semblent indiquer que le JACR a fait la promotion de la diversité dans la recherche en comptabilité, a produit de précieux outils d'apprentissage et a largement ouvert ses pages aux chercheurs intéressés à l'élaboration d'études de cas destinées à l'enseignement.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".