MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106650981 · doi:10.1506/206k-rv7l-2jmn-w3d3

Forces Leading to the Adoption of Accrual Accounting by the Canadian Federal Government: An Institutional Perspective*/ LES FORCES AYANT MENÉ L'ADMINISTRATION FÉDÉRALE CANADIENNE À ADOPTER LA COMPTABILITÉ D'EXERCICE: UNE PERSPECTIVE INSTITUTIONNELLE

2006· article· en· W2106650981 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ron Baker, Morina Rennie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Accounting Perspectives · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccrualAccountingNormativeGovernment (linguistics)AuditBusinessAdministration (probate law)Financial accountingPolitical sciencePublic administrationAccounting information systemEarningsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In 1995, the federal government of Canada announced that it would adopt full accrual accounting. The change was fully implemented at the department level in 2001 and for government‐wide financial reporting in 2003. Using the perspective of institutional theory, we examine several factors that had the potential to influence the federal government's decision to adopt full accrual accounting, including two royal commissions, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, credit markets, and the practices of other national governments. We find that the decision to change to accrual accounting can be largely attributed to coercive and normative influences of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (supported by the normative influence of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants' Public Sector Accounting Board) and mimetic isomorphism with other members of the federal government's organizational field.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0220.022
Scholarly communication0.0130.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.311
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations60
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Accounting PerspectivesSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207