MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2217490503 · doi:10.1016/s1041-7060(01)08005-1

Arbitrators' perceptions of accounting data in assessing ability to pay

2004· book-chapter· en· W2217490503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Russell Craig, Joel Amernic

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in public interest accounting · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationAccountingPerceptionRelevance (law)WagePublic accountingSelection (genetic algorithm)BusinessPolitical sciencePsychologyComputer scienceLawAudit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The public interest will be advanced if accounting data are evaluated properly and in an informed fashion in arbitration proceedings. This chapter focuses on arbitrators' perceptions of the relevance of accounting data in assessing ability to pay wage claims. Seven propositions indicative of perceptions are drawn from a selection of Canadian arbitration cases. Australian experience is cited for comparative purposes. Some general evaluative guidelines and recommendations are proposed to help show how accounting data ought to be invoked.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.015
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in public interest accountingSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207