Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is evidence that the presence of the earliest Portuguese accountants in Brazil can be dated to 1549, the earliest official recognition of an association of bookeepers in this ex-Portuguese colony can be dated to 1850. In the case of the British Empire, accountancy emerged as a profession in the late nineteenth-century and this model of professionalism was initially transported to the settler-colonies of this Empire, America, Canada and Australia. In the case of the Portuguese Empire, the development of professional accounting followed a very different trajectory. Here too, there is evidence of the transfer of accounting technology across international borders. However, in Portuguese colonies, such as Brazil, the professionalism of accountancy does not manifest itself until the mid twentieth century. Drawing on archival based research conducted in both Portugal and Brazil, this study sets out to examine the role of accountancy as a means of control in this ex-colony. In doing so, it also draws attention to the social, political and economic forces that gave rise to differences in the development of accountancy within the contextual settings of these two Empires. Since much of the prior literature pertains to the professionalism of accountancy within Britain and her ex-colonies, with perhaps the exception of the recent work of Dyball et al., this study seeks to contribute to this growing field by focusing on the case of Brazil, a Portuguese ex-colony. Emerging as the product of government initiatives, the first accounting body in Brazil was created in 1946, the Conselho Regional de Contabilidade de Rio de Janeiro (CRC/RJ). Ensuing events crystallized within legislation the functions of accounting professionals and drew attention to issues of their perceived status. The study sets out to investigate the internal and external forces that transformed the modus operandi of accountants in this country.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".