Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent adoption in the U.S.A. and Canada of the management approach to identify reportable segments places relevance of the disclosed segmental data as the overriding concern over comparability. This study investigates whether relevance and comparability are mutually exclusive or can be simultaneously achieved in segmental disclosure. It is explicitly recognized that both properties are a joint function of segment performance and segment identification, the performance–identification conundrum. By using a data set drawn from the U.K., a jurisdiction that explicitly allows directors’ discretion when identifying reportable segments, and a series of tests which remove performance differences, the potential impact of segment identification on the relevance/comparability issue is highlighted. The results of the tests reveal that for a significant portion of the sample the levels of both relevance and comparability are simultaneously low due to the segment identification choices made. These choices appear to match the possible outcomes of following the management approach to identification.By implication, the adoption of the management approach may lead to reduced comparability and relevance in some cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.104 | 0.448 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".