Развитие мировой практики управленческого учета в бюджетной и коммерческой сферах экономики
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of development of management accounting is closely connected with the development of the economies. The emergence of management accounting, as an independent academic discipline occurred in 1972. This year marked the official separation of accounting and financial management. The article presents the peculiarities of the origin of management accounting in Russia, USA, Germany, UK, France, Canada, China, and the basic temporal stages of the formation of modern management accounting. The current stage was marked by large-scale development of science of management, including strategic direction; strengthening of administrative influence on economic processes in the economy and the lack of unity of scientists from different countries in understanding the nature and content of management accounting. For many decades in the organizations of sector of public administration in Russia and abroad the system of budgetary accounting and reporting was formed and developed. In foreign countries the greatest need in the development of management accounting in government agencies appeared in the middle of 1980s, in Russia only in 2004-2006. In the modern terms of management accounting in the public sector has become quite relevant. In the first place at the state level appears effective and target use of the allocated funds, which is difficult to implement without the use of modern management accounting system. However, the value of management accounting for commercial and budgetary enterprises (institutions) will be different. However, despite the various options for receiving the finance for both spheres, managerial accounting is the link, without which to date, the company will lose control over financial and economic activity, as result it is not possible to make objective and timely decisions in production management.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.009 |
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".