IFRS STANDARDS AND THEIR POLITICAL ACCEPTANCE IN EUROPE AND UNITED STATES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The year 2005 marked the start of a new era in global conduct of business, and thefulfillment of a thirty-year effort to create the financial reporting rules for a worldwidecapital market. For during that year’s financial reporting cycle, as many as 7,000 listedcompanies in the 25 European Union member states, plus many others in countries such asAustralia, New Zealand, Russia, and South Africa were expected (in the EU, required) toproduce annual financial statements in compliance with a single set of international rules—International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Many other business entities, whilenot publicly held and not currently required to comply with IFRS, will also do so, eitherimmediately or over time, in order to conform to what is clearly becoming the newworldwide standard. Since there are about 15,000 SEC-registered companies in the USAthat prepare financial statements in accordance with US GAAP (plus countless nonpubliclyheld companies also reporting under GAAP), the vast majority of the world’s largebusinesses will now be reporting under one or the other of these two comprehensivesystems of accounting and financial reporting rules.Most other national GAAP standards have been reduced in importance or are being phasedout as nations all over the worlds are now embracing IFRS. For example, Canada hasannounced that Canadian GAAP (which was very similar to US GAAP) will be eliminatedand replaced by IFRS by 2011. More immediately, China will require listed companies toemploy IFRS. It is quite predictable that only US GAAP will (for the foreseeable future)remain as a competitive force in the accounting standards arena, and even that situation willbe more a formality than a substantive reality, given the formal commitment (andsubstantial progress made to date) to “converge” US GAAP and IFRS.
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 | 0.039 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".