Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses different issues as to whether or in what sense the process of establishing Canadian accounting standards is a political-legislative process in the perception of standard setters. It also discusses the extent to which secrecy should surround the standard-setting process, and the role that academic research should play in assisting standard setters. To some degree, accounting standard setting is a political-legislative activity irrespective of the specific political, legal, and social environments within which standards are established. The essential elements of the argument as to why, or in what sense, standard setting is political are described. In both Canada and the United States, the minimum quantity and the specific type of accounting information produced is regulated. Whether or not standard setters perceive that they have a political or legislative role to perform, they in fact do as long as standards are mandatory, have some economic impact, and are, at least in principle, sensitive to individual preferences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.049 | 0.051 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.018 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".