Los diferentes tipos de resultados en las cooperativas portuguesas. Un estudio de caso múltiple
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to identify the different types of results in the Portuguese cooperative, understand the legal and accounting treatment of them and assess whether the accounting standards allows to highlight the specificities of the results. Using a qualitative methodology, using content analysis and a multiple case study, we study the legal and accounting regime of the results of cooperatives. We find that the legal and accounting treatment of the results is not properly suited to the reality of cooperatives. There are no clearly identifiable in the current legislation the different types of results, which are subject to the same accounting treatment results of commercial companies, despite substantial differences between the two legal forms. Thus, we advocate the change of accounting framework applicable to cooperatives, subjecting them to the normative applicable to non-profit organizations, in order to highlight the real object of these, namely its mutualistic scope, which will differentiate, in the accounting documents, the different types of results, as the model of the statements contained therein allows the deployment of the results by activities.
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 | 0.019 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".