MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078931906 · doi:10.1108/eb043407

Accounting Publications and Research in Spain: First Half of the 20th Century

2004· article· en· W2078931906 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Accounting and Finance · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Financial Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingTerminologyGermanAuditDepreciation (economics)Valuation (finance)Period (music)Section (typography)EconomicsBusinessHistoryLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this survey we present (after an Introduction) a guide to the major doctrinal trends of Spanish accounting of the period, classified in various categories: different views of the scientific nature of accounting, dominant theories, purposes of accounting, special areas, views on classification and on the recording of transactions, views on valuation and depreciation, cost accounting, inflationary issues, auditing, accounting terminology, historical concerns, and the practical orientation of publications. A separate section offers further details about prominent Spanish scholars; it is followed by the conclusion. The latter indicates that during the period under investigation, Spanish accountants contributed little to novel accounting thought, but strongly relied on French and Italian doctrines, though neglecting German ideas. Despite of this, Spanish accountants were aware of many theoretical and instrumental novelties of the day, and applied them without substantial delay to their own environment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.245 · 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