THE ROARING NINETIES: ACCOUNTING HISTORY COMES OF AGE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper outlines developments in the accounting history literature during the 1990s. The introduction chronicles the immense broadening of publication opportunities in accounting history that characterized the decade. To a certain extent, this enhancement of outlets resulted from a richer dialogue among accounting historians who became increasingly willing to debate paradigmatic and methodological issues. In this context, the paper identifies and discusses “traditional” and “critical” forms of accounting history and reviews work within the paradigms of economic-rationalist, Foucauldian, and Marxist/labor-process studies. The major elements of debate between “old” and “new” perspectives on accounting history are discussed and linked to later collaborative efforts and refinements in the work of each genre. Major research projects published during the 1990s are identified, tabulated, and discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion of accounting history as the decade closed, with a particular focus on the opportunities and threats that may lie ahead for the field.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".