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 Ross Skinner built his intimate knowledge of the intricacies of the art of accounting through a very long and rich career as an “accounting philosopher". This allowed him to both observe, and be part of, the formalization of today's GAAP. The duration and timing of Skinner's career also allowed him to experience directly the gradual evolution of our accounting model from an approach based largely on principles to one based increasingly on rules. The objective of this paper is to look behind accounting figures, which are the product of varying combinations of rules and judgment, and to discuss some recent events that have rocked the auditing and accounting profession. Our comments are presented in the context of views expressed by Skinner in his 1995 “Judgment in Jeopardy” article. Skinner had a keen interest in accounting history. Therefore, we begin our paper by referring to Paciol's notion of “venture accounting". We use this notion to introduce our discussion of financial reporting, which has become an important instrument of resource allocation and a challenge for professional judgment. This leads us to describe some of the ideas Skinner presented in his article on accounting judgment as “visionary". Had we listened to him, perhaps we could have avoided some of the costly changes and additions recently imposed on our governance system, such as the creation of the Canadian Public Accountability Board and the tightening of several laws and regulations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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