A Conceptual Framework for Learning Management Accounting
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper demonstrates how Schoenfeld's (1985) conceptual framework for mathematics can provide an alternate framework for learning and thereby teaching management accounting. The four-part framework—heuristics, resources, beliefs, and controls—is a refinement to problem-based learning with three attributes in regard to management accounting. First, all aspects for teaching management accounting are integrated into a single framework or theory. Consistency among all parts of management accounting clarifies student and instructor roles in the learning process. Second, the framework's problem-solving focus with linkages to explanatory materials or resources allows students to be rigorously informed about the functionality of management accounting heuristics. Third, transition or extension of relatively simple, standard problems to more complex nonstandard problems or cases is facilitated by introducing appropriate beliefs and controls. In effect, this approach enables management accounting, and particularly case analysis, to be taught with more structure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it