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
The constant evolution of the importance of auditors’ functions during the twentieth century brought with it considerable scholarship on their responsibility. Indeed, confronted with the insolvency of a company in which they have invested, shareholders, investors, and offerors increasingly seek to recover their economic loss from auditors who, solvent and insured, were negligent in auditing the financial statements of the company in question. Accordingly, the study of the liability of an auditor towards third parties has a growing importance. In this article the author analyzes comparatively auditors’ liability under the common law of England and Canada and under the civil law of France and Quebec. Specifically, she attempts to show how courts use the duty of care in the common law and causality in the civil law to limit this liability. Furthermore, she pays particular attention to the influence of Canadian, English, and French law on the law of Quebec. The author not only delineates this influence, but also comments on the extent to which the law of Quebec may legitimately take inspiration from the English and Canadian common law and the civil law of France in the area of auditors’ liability to third parties.
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