MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991492184 · doi:10.3233/jifs-179530

Swarm intelligence and ant colony optimization in accounting model choices

2019· article· en· W2991492184 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAnt colony optimization algorithmsParticle swarm optimizationSolvencyProfitability indexMarket liquidityMathematical optimizationBusinessArtificial intelligenceFinanceAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current accounting methods for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have long running times and low user satisfaction. Therefore, a method for the selection of accounting models for SME s based on accounting market big data ( AMBD ) is proposed in this paper. Firstly, some indicators such as the current ratio, quick ratio, asset-liability ratio, accounts receivable turnover rate, and other indicators taken from the solvency, operating capacity, profitability, and growth capacity of a company are selected to set up an AMBD constraint system. Then, the principal component analysis method is used to achieve the classification of the constraints of the AMBD . Finally, by combining particle swarm optimization with ant colony optimization, the optimal accounting model is obtained through iteration. Experimental results show that the proposed method has high efficiency and user satisfaction, and achieves a high coefficient of rationality. Furthermore, the method incorporates the constraints found in the AMBD , and meets the selection requirements of the SME accounting model.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.227 · 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