MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891480094 · doi:10.25105/mraai.v1i2.2804

MANAJEMEN LABA DAN MOTIVASI MANAJEMEN

2008· article· en· W2891480094 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedia Riset Akuntansi Auditing & Informasi · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Financial Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarnings managementAccountingEarningsRemedial educationBusinessPerceptionEconomicsPolitical sciencePsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article address about earnings management. Earnings management is a kind of accounting manipulations besides income smooth­ing and creative accounting. Accounts manipulations have been matter of research, discussion and, even, controversy in several countries such as United States, Canada, United Kingdom, even in Indonesia especially during crisis period.The objective of this paper is to elaborate a general framework for earnings management and the management's motivations Besides that this article address the fact that accounting academics often have very different perceptions of earnings management than do practitioners and regulators Practitioners and regulators often see earnings management as problematic and in the need of immediate remedial action. Academics unwilling to believe that earnings management rise problem. The end of article, I purposed for future research in earnings 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.159 · 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