Bibliographic record
Abstract
Citation (2010), "List of contributors", Jeffrey, C. (Ed.) Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting (Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, Vol. 14), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. vii-viii. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1574-0765(2010)0000014002 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited Copyright © 2010, Emerald Group Publishing Limited Book Chapters Research on professional responsibility and ethics in accounting Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting Copyright page List of contributors Editorial Information “True and fair” as the moral compass of financial reporting The focus of professional ethics: Ethical professionals or ethical profession? A comparison of the association between corporate social responsibility and executive compensation: United States versus Canada Moral confrontation: An essential companion to moral imagination Moral intensity, ethical reasoning, and equitable relief judgments Linking virtue to representational faithfulness in making judgments in a principles-based environment Ranking North American accounting scholars publishing ethics research: 1986 through 2008 Publication trends in research on professional responsibility and ethics in accounting and research on accounting ethics, and a database of the articles Teaching ethics in the accounting and tax curriculum using Milgram's agentic shift theory Ethical concerns about the online sale of instructor-only textbook resources
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.720 | 0.706 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".