R. J. CHAMBERS AND THE AICPA'S POSTULATES AND PRINCIPLES CONTROVERSY: A CASE OF VICARIOUS ACTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study seeks to provide an account, drawing on previously unexamined archival material, of some of the events surrounding the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' (AICPA) postulates and principles controversy in the late 1950s and early 1960s. We examine these events from the viewpoint of Raymond J. Chambers, one of the most prolific and polarizing figures in accounting academia. The study relies on items of correspondence from the R. J. Chambers Archive and utilizes the term “vicarious action,” taken from Actor-Network Theory, to describe Chambers' inability to influence the deliberations on accounting postulates and principles at the AICPA directly, and hence his need to influence the deliberations indirectly through intermediaries such as Maurice Moonitz. Chambers made three separate attempts to vicariously align the AICPA's position on postulates and principles with that of his own, but all three of these attempts proved unsuccessful.
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 | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".