MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982257521

SINO-FOREST CORPORATION: THE CASE OF THE STANDING TIMBER

2017· article· en· W2982257521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles P. Cullinan

Bibliographic record

VenueBryant Digital Repository (Bryant University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporationBusinessForestryFinanceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sino-Forest Case provides a real-world example of financial misstatement and audit failure.2 The case encompasses related parties, auditing procedures for tangible assets, and internal controls. Sino-Forest Corporation was engaged primarily in the purchase and sale of standing timber in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The principal executive office was in Hong Kong and its securities were traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange until 2011. The management of Sino-Forest created a complex web of subsidiaries and related entities whereby it controlled the purchase and sale of standing timber in widely dispersed regions of the PRC. Sino-Forest personnel created false documents related to these transactions, which were materially misstated in the company’s financial statements. Sino-Forest auditors failed to properly recognize and deal with these misstatements, despite concerns expressed by members of the audit team about a lack of evidence regarding the standing timber assets. As a result of these problems, the company was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and is now defunct.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBryant Digital Repository (Bryant University)Same topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207