MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948926659 · doi:10.33423/jaf.v18i9.132

Let’s Hash Out the Issues in Auditing Recreational Marijuana Businesses Before the Opportunities Go Up in Smoke

2018· article· en· W2948926659 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daphne Rixon, Pauline Downer, Alex Faseruk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Accounting and Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditRecreationTransparency (behavior)CannabisBusinessAccountingPolitical scienceLawMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within North America, there is a plethora of regulations regarding the accounting, taxation, and auditing of medical and/or recreational marijuana given conflicting treatment within various jurisdictions in either Canada or the United States. This study focuses on examining the auditing issues firstly in the United States where recreational cannabis is allowed in nine jurisdictions with 29 allowing medical usage. Canada is then considered wherein medical marijuana is allowed nationwide with recreational marijuana becoming legal on October 17, 2018. The study identifies the lack of meaningful auditing standards and comments where additional pronouncements are required to enhance transparency and heighten investor confidence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.177 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Accounting and FinanceSame topicTaxation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207