The IPSASB's recent strategies: opportunities for academics and standard-setters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this article is to contribute to an ongoing dialogue between practitioners and academics. This article describes the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) recent strategies and highlights the IPSASB's increasing outreach to academics. Design/methodology/approach This is a practitioner's viewpoint which reflects the IPSASB's publicly available documents, and the opinions of a practitioner directly involved in the IPSASB's work and International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) development. Findings The findings are that the IPSASB has increased its outreach to academics and now academics have more opportunities to engage with the IPSASB and IPSAS developments. The IPSASB's strategy has remained relatively constant over time, focusing on IPSAS to address public sector-specific issues, alignment with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and reduction of differences between IPSAS and Government Finance Statistics (GFS) reporting guidelines. Research limitations/implications The limitations of this article (which are also its strength in terms of fitness for purpose) are that as a practitioner's viewpoint it provides a brief overview and personal judgments, rather than an empirical analysis of developments applying a theoretical framework. Practical implications The practical implications were IPSASB's increased outreach to the research community providing opportunities for academics to have increased input into IPSAS development, with likely benefits to researchers and the IPSASB. Social implications Practitioners’ engagement with academics supports increased understanding of the respective views leading to better outcomes for practitioners and academics working in the area of public sector financial reporting and its regulation. Originality/value This article is the first to (a) describe the IPSASB's increasing outreach to academics during 2019–2020 and (b) compare the IPSASB's strategies for the period of 2019–2023, with its strategies since the beginning of IPSAS developments in 1996–1997.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".