MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747987238 · doi:10.1002/jcaf.22294

Understanding the New International Ethics Standards

2017· article· en· W2747987238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven A Harrast, Amy Swaney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Corporate Accounting & Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingGenerally Accepted Auditing StandardsProfessional standardsJurisdictionAccounting standardSubject (documents)BusinessEthical standardsInternational standardFinancial accountingLawPolitical scienceAccounting information systemEngineering ethicsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) standard on noncompliance with laws and regulations (NOCLAR) has been adopted by over 100 countries, including Canada and Mexico and is well on the way to becoming the global standard for accounting ethics. U.S. accounting professionals may become subject to the IESBA standard by working in a country or jurisdiction that has adopted the standard, working as part of a professional network that has adopted the standard, or performing services for a company that is part of a group governed by IESBA standards. While the IESBA standard resembles U.S. standards, it is more inclusive. U.S. standards exclude from consideration illegal acts (similar to NOCLAR) that do not have a material effect on the financial statements, while IESBA standards includes NOCLAR even when not material. Accounting professionals should recognize that they may have broader responsibilities for resolving NOCLAR when working under IESBA standards. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.607
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.128 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Corporate Accounting & FinanceSame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207