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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to understand how the tasks of management accountants (MA) are affected by data analytics (DA). Design/methodology/approach A qualitative methodology was deemed most appropriate given the exploratory nature of the research questions ( RQ ). In total, 10 open-ended interview questions were used to gather the evidence. The case study design was inductive, yielding rich data from 29 respondents representing 20 different organizations. Findings Answers were provided to three interrelated RQ s about the use of DA by MA, namely, what are their responsibilities? How does this work support inference, prediction and assurance? And how can they ensure insights from DA can be turned into decisions that add value? The findings also indicate that MA have not taken charge of the data analytic opportunities and at present, their activities remain largely focused on descriptive and financial data analysis rather than more complex activities using external data, operational data and modeling. Research limitations/implications The limitation of this research is that it is based on a relatively small, geographically restricted sample (20 organizations in south-central Canada) as well by interviews that were only 60 min in duration. Practical implications Provides a base for the existing practice of management accounting with DA. Social implications Explains the social relationship between DA and management accounting. Originality/value Documented and explained the extent of actual DA use by MA.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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 it