Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This commentary reviews the current status of the global use of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and offers thoughts on the prospects for truly global financial reporting. The shift towards global use of IFRS is one of the biggest changes in financial reporting history. Although many countries require or permit the use of IFRS by firms listed on their capital markets, the global shift to IFRS is incomplete—both in terms of the required or permitted use of the standards and in terms of their varied application and enforcement around the world. In addition, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has an active agenda to improve the existing standards. Thus, the lofty goal of truly global, high‐quality financial reporting has not yet been achieved. In fact, it probably is not completely achievable—there always will be variation in application and enforcement of the standards as well as scope for improving them. However, we can come closer to achieving the goal. It would be premature to abandon the goal now thereby forgoing the potential benefits it promises. Rather, we should develop plans for the next phase of the journey towards truly global financial reporting.
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 | 0.027 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.041 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".