MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Proposal to Replace ‘True and Fair View’ With ‘Acceptable Risk of Material Misstatement’

2008· article· en· W2128634847 on OpenAlexaff
Wally Smieliauskas, Russell Craig, Joel Amernic

Bibliographic record

VenueAbacus · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Financial Auditing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditAccountingArgumentation theoryBusinessAffect (linguistics)Auditor's reportActuarial scienceGoing concernPsychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines argumentation factors which affect the truth of an audit opinion. We propose that the auditor's report be revised to replace the words ‘true and fair view’ with ‘acceptable risk of material misstatement’. This would better align the communication of auditors with the characteristics of accounting information upon which they report. Adoption of the wording ‘acceptable risk of material misstatement’ will facilitate a better appreciation by users of financial statements of the accounting estimates in financial statements.

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)0.204
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.295
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2040.295
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.047
Scholarly communication0.0220.025
Open science0.0090.010
Research integrity0.0460.043
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.164 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbacusSame topicAgricultural and Financial AuditingFrench-language works237,207