MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560730920 · doi:10.22495/cocv14i1c2p3

A comparison of different approaches to modeling financial statements

2016· article· en· W2560730920 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCorporate Ownership and Control · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and XBRL
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntity–relationship modelObject (grammar)Strengths and weaknessesRelational modelAdaptabilitySet (abstract data type)Conceptual modelComputer scienceAccountingRelational databaseCompliance (psychology)Object modelKnowledge managementProcess managementBusinessData miningPsychologyDatabaseArtificial intelligenceManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the relational, entity-relationship (ER), and object-based approaches to modeling financial statements; and discusses the strengths, weaknesses, and user adaptability of these models. We believe that the relational, ER, and object-oriented models may not be individually adequate to model the accounting processes in an integrative accounting information system. The increasing amount of disclosures in the footnotes to the financial statements and the complex compliance requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act suggest that the object-relational model may be appropriate to model both the quantitative and qualitative items in the accounting processes. The object-relational model builds on the strengths of the relational, ER, and object-oriented models and mitigates the weaknesses of these models. We develop a set of propositions based on our review of the current literature on the conceptual models.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.066 · 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