The Theater's Backstage: When Numbers Serve the Show—A Case Study on Livent (Part 2)*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT On December 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada ended the suspense surrounding 20 years of court cases when it found the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche (Deloitte) guilty of negligence in its audit of the 1997 financial statements of Livent Inc. As part of a concurrent process, the Discipline Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (now CPA Ontario) also had to rule on the conduct of the professionals involved in auditing Livent. This case study asks students to play the role of members of the Discipline Committee assigned to judge the work performed by Deloitte's auditors. The students should be able to identify instances of noncompliance with professional standards, mainly Canadian Auditing Standards 200 and 240, and determine whether the auditors should be found guilty of professional misconduct. The students will be asked whether they would have arrived at the same verdict as did the Discipline Committee members.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".