Strategies in the development of accounting history as an academic discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accounting history has emerged as an academic discipline over the last 40 years within English speaking countries. There is now a critical mass of researchers, dedicated journals and conferences, and a significant body of literature that is increasing in scope and depth. This article examines the strategies that, ex post , can be seen as important in developing accounting history as a discipline. Three strategies are identified: (1) making accounting history relevant (to education, standard-setting, and organizational memory/identity), (2) making accounting history controversial (by identifying positive and negative exemplars, providing historical critiques of mainstream research, and encouraging methodological/ theoretical pluralism within accounting history), and (3) institutionalizing accounting history (by developing academic associations, journals and conferences, and embedding accounting history within a network of supporting organizations including universities, professional associations, libraries, research centers and publishers). The article concludes by identifying the weak points in the disciplinary project.
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 | 0.047 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".