MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079032489 · doi:10.2308/iace-50241

Shooting for Assurance: The Case of Blazing Arrow Speed

2012· article· en· W2079032489 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

VenueIssues in Accounting Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting Education and Careers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObjectivity (philosophy)AuditFinancial statementSkepticismArrowStatement (logic)Variety (cybernetics)AccountingClass (philosophy)PsychologyBusinessComputer sciencePublic relationsPolitical scienceLawArtificial intelligenceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Designed to be used in an undergraduate audit and assurance course, this case introduces students to the concept of assurance. Students are asked to consider an engagement in which they would provide a written statement about the performance of an archery equipment manufacturer's products. The case encourages students to consider a variety of engagements that a public accountant may provide a client, and to achieve specific learning outcomes including increased familiarity with attestation standards, engagement criteria, objectivity, and professional skepticism. The analysis may be completed in a single class, and can be useful either at the start of the course to provide an introduction to attestation or at the end of the course to differentiate attestation engagements from traditional financial statement audits.

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)0.002
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 score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.292 · 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