Big Data Analytics: Opportunity or Threat for the Accounting Profession?
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
ABSTRACT Contrary to Frey and Osborne's (2013) prediction that the accounting profession faces extinction, we argue that accountants can still create value in a world of Big Data analytics. To advance this position, we provide a conceptual framework based on structured/unstructured data and problem-driven/exploratory analysis. We argue that accountants already excel at problem-driven analysis of structured data, are well positioned to play a leading role in the problem-driven analysis of unstructured data, and can support data scientists performing exploratory analysis on Big Data. Our argument rests on two pillars: accountants are familiar with structured datasets, easing the transition to working with unstructured data, and possess knowledge of business fundamentals. Thus, rather than replacing accountants, we argue that Big Data analytics complements accountants' skills and knowledge. However, educators, standard setters, and professional bodies must adjust their curricula, standards, and frameworks to accommodate the challenges of Big Data analytics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it