Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international accounting standards (IFRSs and ISAs) rely increasingly more on the "professional judgment".What is the situation in France and in Romania?After the conceptual clarifications, the article places the evolution of the professional judgment in the general movement of the law, which goes from "modernism" to "post-modernism" to become a law of specialists able to have a qualified opinion on highly technical subjects.In order to observe, in a scientific manner, this evolution of the accounting standards, we conducted a content analysis of principal legislative accounting texts, international and national (France and Romania), supplemented by a lexicometric analysis.These analyses allowed us to conclude that the importance of professional judgment in accounting standards is lower at the national level than it is at the international level.However, we highlight a number of dangers related to an increased use of professional judgment: loss of comparability and transparency, increased risks for accounting professionals including auditors, and significant discrepancies in the use of professional judgment in individual or consolidated accounts.
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 | 0.014 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".