Waves of Global Standardization: Small Practitioners' Resilience and Intra-Professional Fragmentation within the Accounting Profession
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
SUMMARY We examine how small practitioners perceive and react to global standards of practice and the underlying mechanisms put in place by the accounting profession to ensure “appropriate” implementation. Interviews with practitioners, standard setters, and other informants indicate that small practitioners consider many features of global standards ill-adapted to their practices' particular circumstances. However, they do not tend to resist actively global standardization, adopting instead a logic of resilience under which they mobilize coping mechanisms, such as support mobilization, selective application of standards, and increased involvement in the activities of the profession. An important paradox ensues from small practitioners' professional resilience: by adapting to globalization pressures, small practitioners arguably sustain their own marginalization and intensify the fragmentation processes within the accounting profession. For instance, their role is increasingly peripheral within the audit market, and they are often constrained to use “second order” accounting standards.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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