MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966249400 · doi:10.2308/aahj-52527

How Audited Financial Statements Facilitated Shareholder Activism for the Colonization of Western Canada

2019· article· en· W2966249400 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 Historians Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShareholderAuditAccountingFinancial statementBusinessCharterGovernment (linguistics)FinanceCorporate governancePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In 1863, ownership of the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) was transferred from a small group of patient shareholders to a much larger group of rent-seeking investors. These new shareholders obliged the HBC to introduce audited financial statements beginning in 1866. These shareholders assumed that audited financial statements were credible artifacts for sharing in the HBC's wealth (by facilitating the sale of the HBC's Charter to the Canadian Government, thereby enabling the creation of Western Canada). This paper contributes to the literature by showing how audited financial statements enable shareholders to become more knowledgeable about a company's prospects through emancipatory accounting, and thereby to be more demanding of management for performance. The underlying conjecture that financial statement knowledge leads to shareholder activism was not disproved.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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