MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116447819 · doi:10.2308/iace-51002

Lakeview Hotel Investment Corp.

2014· article· en· W2116447819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fred Pries, Sandra Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Accounting Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting Education and Careers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingFinancial statementDatabase transactionBusinessInvestment (military)Statement (logic)Reading (process)Financial statement analysisAccounting information systemValue (mathematics)Financial accountingFinanceFinancial analysisPolitical scienceComputer scienceDatabaseLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Lakeview Hotel Investment Corp. (LHIC) is a publicly traded owner and operator of hotel properties located primarily within smaller centers in western Canada. The case provides students with the opportunity to develop research and analytical skills by investigating related party disclosures found within LHIC's financial statements. Students are asked to identify related parties and analyze the transactions between LHIC and its related parties. They are then directed to comment on the underlying value of the transactions. This case illustrates both how much can be learned by careful reading and analysis of related party transaction disclosures and also how many questions about related party transactions remain unanswered based on the information contained in financial statements. Although all information used in the case is publicly available, the degree of difficulty can be adjusted for use within undergraduate and graduate courses by varying the amount of information provided to students. This case is suitable for intermediate financial accounting, accounting theory, and financial statement analysis courses.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Accounting EducationSame topicAccounting Education and CareersFrench-language works237,207