Strategies in the development of accounting history as an academic discipline
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.572
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
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.
The record
- Venue
- Accounting History
- Topic
- Accounting and Organizational Management
- Field
- Business, Management and Accounting
- Canadian institutions
- York University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- DisciplineAccountingMainstreamSociologyAccounting researchPositive accountingBusiness historyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial scienceFinancial accountingAccounting information systemManagementEconomicsLaw
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes