MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129040277 · doi:10.1002/nml.2

Social accounting for nonprofits: Two models

2003· article· en· W2129040277 on OpenAlex
Betty Jane Richmond, Laurie Mook, Quarter Jack

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNonprofit Management and Leadership · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsOntario Trillium FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingSocial accountingValue (mathematics)Field (mathematics)Positive accountingNonmarket forcesEconomicsAccounting information systemSociologyFinancial accountingMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract After giving an overview of the development of social accounting, this article presents two models of social accounting for nonprofits: the community social return on investment model and the expanded value‐added statement. The discussion focuses on the process for establishing a comparative market value for nonmarket social outputs. The authors discuss these models and the comparative market value in relation to social accounting, an academic field that has evolved as part of a critique of financial accounting, especially its failure to analyze the impact of the organization on society and the natural environment. For the most part, scholars have not related social accounting to nonprofits. This article attempts to draw nonprofits into the field of social accounting. Both models address the social impact of nonprofits by including social inputs and outputs that accounting statements normally exclude.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.148 · 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