MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163802183 · doi:10.32038/mbrq.2020.16.05

Financial Condition and Government Accounts: An Analysis in the Municipalities of the State of Rio de Janeiro (2009 to 2015)

2020· article· en· W3163802183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marco Henrique da Silva, Olavo Venturim Caldas

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Studies in Management and Business · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBusiness and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernorAccountabilityGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)Local governmentPoliticsPublic administrationAccountingBusinessFinancePolitical scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research sought to analyze whether the opinion of government accountability of the municipalities of Rio de Janeiro by the Court of Accounts of the State of Rio de Janeiro (TCE-RJ), in the period from 2009 to 2015, considers the financial condition of these municipalities. The financial condition was measured based on the methodology created by the Canadian Institute Chartered Accountants and adapted to the reality of the Brazilian institutional and regulatory environment. Factor analysis was used to select and group the determinants of municipal financial health and the logistic regression analysis to assess whether the result of the opinion of the municipal accounts by the TCE-RJ considered the municipal financial condition. The results were conclusive in relation to the analysis of the accountability of municipal government accounts considering the financial condition factor that deals with the collection, as well as the opinion of the TCE-RJ indicated that it is related to the technical analysis of external control. It was not possible to conclude whether there is political influence from the governor in issuing the prior opinion of the plenary.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Studies in Management and BusinessSame topicBusiness and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207