MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085754681 · doi:10.1111/1911-3838.12004

Condominium Townhouse Investment

2012· article· en· W2085754681 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gulraze Wakil, Karin A. Petruska

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting Education and Careers
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvestment (military)Real estateClass (philosophy)BusinessRevenueQualitative analysisMarketingEstateQualitative researchEconomicsFinanceComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This accounting case involves the evaluation of various alternatives based on a real‐life personal property investment. The Condominium Townhouse Investment ( CTI ) case uses introductory management accounting concepts and analyses to introduce students to the case method of learning. The main concepts reinforced are relevant costs and revenues, including differentiating between opportunity and sunk costs. Students are not only asked to define and identify these items, but to consider choices centered on the decision alternatives in their role as accountants in public practice. This case is especially valuable because it offers students the chance to become engaged in an analysis and decision‐making situation that they can relate to both personally and professionally because, one day, they themselves are likely to become involved in a home ownership decision. The case focuses on real estate as a personal business investment, and requires both qualitative and quantitative analysis, with more emphasis on the qualitative aspect. In addition, the teaching notes include methods and strategies for students to use in an introductory managerial accounting class or level‐1 MBA class.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting PerspectivesSame topicAccounting Education and CareersFrench-language works237,207