MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2310892897 · doi:10.1111/1911-3838.12088

Cream-Filled Cookies: An Assurance In-Class Case

2016· article· en· W2310892897 on OpenAlexaffvenue
J O'Sullivan Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationAuditClass (philosophy)Computer scienceBusinessManagementArtificial intelligenceAccountingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case presents students with a case situation that they can visualize, resulting in some unique learning opportunities. The case is an assurance simulation centered on cookies that can be purchased in the grocery store that have a cream filling, and the same type of cookie but with twice as much cream filling. These cookies are manufactured by various companies including long-standing brands and generic brands from national supermarkets. Given the popularity of these cookies, and the ease of access to them, they make for a perfect introductory simulation to students during their first assurance class. Mr. Cookie becomes a fictional character in the case to represent the client that the auditors are working for. The case is easy enough for students to work independently, and has been tested in both small and large classes; working equally as well. It does require the instructor to invest in some cookies and measurement tools such as rulers, plastic knives and weigh scales. The group discussion at the end consistently results in students gaining a greater understanding of the scope and limitations of assurance services, setting the foundation for the balance of the introductory assurance course.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting PerspectivesSame topicSafety Systems Engineering in AutonomyFrench-language works237,207