Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retraction Decision Aid Reliance: A Longitudinal Field Study Involving Professional Buy‐Side Financial Analysts JAMES HUNTON, VICKY ARNOLD, AND JACQUELINE L. RECK The above article has been retracted by agreement among the following parties: authors Vicky Arnold and Jacqueline Reck: Contemporary Accounting Research ( CAR ) Editor‐in‐Chief Patricia C. O'Brien; the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, which holds the copyright; and publisher Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Bentley University conducted an investigation into the research activities of Dr. J. E. Hunton, and concluded that Dr. Hunton had engaged in research misconduct. The report (available at https://www.bentley.edu/files/Hunton%20report%20July21.pdf ) called into question all of Dr. Hunton's work involving data. A team of CAR editors reviewed that report, responses from co‐authors, and evidence from a supplemental investigation by Bentley University that relates to the above paper. The editors concluded that no credible evidence exists to support the validity of the data in the study, despite a positive search for such evidence. They found no evidence of complicity or misconduct by Dr. Hunton's co‐authors. Based on that review, they determined that the article should be retracted, to maintain the journal's standards of academic integrity and to correct the academic literature. Dr. Hunton declined to comment on this retraction. The article was published online on September 21, 2010, in Wiley Online ( wileyonlinelibrary.com ). Rétractation Le recours aux systèmes d'aide à la décision : une étude longitudinale sur le terrain relative aux analystes financiers professionnels conseillant les acheteurs JAMES HUNTON, VICKY ARNOLD, ET JACQUELINE L. RECK L'article intitulé « Le recours aux systèmes d'aide à la décision : une étude longitudinale sur le terrain relative aux analystes financiers professionnels conseillant les acheteurs » est retiré, conformément à l'accord survenu entre les parties suivantes : les auteures Vicky Arnold et Jacqueline L. Reck; la rédactrice en chef de Recherche comptable contemporaine ( RCC ), Patricia C. O'Brien ; l'Association canadienne des professeurs de comptabilité, titulaire des droits d'auteur; et l’éditeur Wiley Periodicals, Inc. L'enquête menée par l'Université Bentley a établi que le professeur J. E. Hunton s’était rendu coupable d'inconduite en recherche. Le rapport (que l'on peut consulter à l'adresse https://www.bentley.edu/files/Hunton%20report%20July21.pdf ) remet en question l'ensemble des travaux du professeur Hunton faisant intervenir des données. Une équipe de rédacteurs de RCC a étudié ce rapport, les réponses fournies par les coauteures et les preuves recueillies dans le cadre d'une enquête complémentaire menée par l'Université Bentley relativement à l'article susmentionné. Au terme d'une investigation activement menée, ces rédacteurs ont conclu à l'inexistence d'une quelconque preuve crédible attestant la validité des données de l’étude. Rien ne permet de croire par ailleurs à la complicité ou à l'inconduite des coauteures du professeur Hunton. Les rédacteurs chargés de cet examen en sont venus à la conclusion que le respect des normes de RCC en matière de probité universitaire et de rectitude intellectuelle des publications de recherche nécessitait le retrait de cet article. Le professeur Hunton a décliné l'invitation à commenter ce retrait. L'article en question a été publié en ligne le 21 septembre 2010, chez Wiley Online ( wileyonlinelibrary.com ).
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Research integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.019 | 0.311 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.173 | 0.182 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".