Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the United States, the prodding of the Securities and Exchange Commission has, ~rom the beginning. been a potent factor affecting the direction and pace of efforts by the American Institute of Certified Public \nAccountants to develop accounting principles. Moreover, the heightened \ninterest in the work of the American Institute by the financial press, \nsecurity analysts, financial executives, and the Federal Government doubtless accelerated the profession&s;s programme in the 1960s and 1970s. The \nearly activities of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants were \ndue in no small measure to three external factors: the interest in accounting and disclosure standards evinced by the Ontario Securities Commission, an attempt by the draftsmen of a Federal income tax bill to predicate \nthe determination of taxable income on hitherto uncodified "generally \naccepted accounting principles," and the influence in Canada of the \nvigorous programme of the American Institute. In England, the prospect \nof a major revision of the Companies Act, particularly in view of the \nabsence of legislation since the Royal Mail case, impelled The Institute of \nChartered Accountants in England and Wales to issue a cluster of \nRecommendations on Accounting Principles in the early and middle \n1940s. Through the issue of such guidance. the accounting profession, \nincluding notably the members in commerce and industry, hoped to have \nan influence on the contents of the bill introduced into Parliament. In the \nlate 1960s, hard on the heels of press criticism and suggestions from \nGovernment and the financial community, the English Institute announced \na significant intensification of its programme, in which four other accountancy bodies later became partners.!
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.393 | 0.250 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".