MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782488774 · doi:10.1177/1032373217748949

The creation and acceptance of public sector accounting standards in Canada

2018· article· en· W2782488774 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting History · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingGovernment (linguistics)Status quoPublic sectorAuditGovernmental accountingAccounting standardPublic accountingPositive accountingAccountabilityBusinessAccounting information systemFinancial accountingFund accountingPublic administrationEconomicsPolitical scienceLawEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the events leading up to the origination of public sector accounting standards in Canada by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) and their adoption by the Government of Canada. We interpret these events from the perspective of institutional theory. We find that a long-standing institutionalized practice of self-developed government accounting policies was disrupted by a series of challenges. An influential actor in this process was the Office of the Auditor General of Canada which first pushed for the creation of independent government accounting standards and then pushed the government toward the implementation of the accounting policies developed by the CICA’s public sector accounting standard-setting body. Two CICA studies served to further disrupt the status quo. We also find evidence of the role played by an inter-organization professional network in defining and labeling problems that ultimately resulted in the change.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.180 · 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