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
Published reports on censuses of population and the surviving enumeration books on which they were based are key sources for accounting historians. The increasing availability of electronic versions of census enumeration books (CEBs) for Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. offers opportunities for better understanding the history of occupations concerned with the performance of accounting functions. However, census reports and original census documents must be interpreted critically. The paper reports on a study of accountants appearing in the transcribed version of the British CEBs for 1881. It is shown how the published census underreported the number of accountants in Britain and suggests that there are potential inconsistencies in the manner in which accountants were counted. While accounting historians may rely on the high level of accuracy in transcribed versions of the CEBs, transcription errors have been discovered in relation to female accountants, those pursuing occupations spelt in ways closely resembling “accountant,” and individuals possessing complex occupational titles. Caution in respect of entries relating to accountant clerks is also suggested.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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