MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The First Quarter Century of the GASB (1984–2009): A Perspective on Standard Setting (Part Two)

2012· article· en· W3122457021 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helen M. Roybark, Edward N. Coffman, Gary John Previts

Bibliographic record

VenueAbacus · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)AccountingState (computer science)Perspective (graphical)Fund accountingBusinessPolitical scienceFinancial accountingAccounting information systemComputer scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (hereafter GASB or Board) was established in April 1984 as the authoritative accounting standard‐setting body for state and local governmental entities in the United States. There are over 87,000 state and local entities in the country and for the most part these entities are required to comply with the generally accepted accounting principles established by the GASB; hence, the standards promulgated by the GASB are significant. On 30 June 2009, the GASB completed its twenty‐fifth year of standard setting. Because of the Board's influence and the importance of its mission, an increased understanding of the GASB and its accomplishments during its first 25 years of existence is important. This is the second of two papers which together provide a complete sequential treatment of the GASB's operational history through the end of its first quarter century. The first part provided an historical perspective about municipal accounting issues from colonial times to 2009 and included appendix materials identifying the composition of the Board and biographical material on key personnel. The first paper concluded with a review of the relationship of other governmental standard setting bodies at the Federal and the International level. This paper provides an overview of the future challenges faced by the Board and supplies a digest of the standards including appendix and a synoptic summary of the standards the Board has promulgated by topic and by standard number.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbacusSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207