Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper systematically reviews government accounting research in a developed economy, Canada, and suggests ways to advance knowledge in this area. The purpose of this study is to provide researchers with an up-to-date overview of the field of Canadian government accounting research. The methodology consisted of a structured literature search to select and analyze academic papers according to the thematic objectives of this study. Our review covers 29 articles published in accounting, finance, and public administration journals over 42 years. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review has been done in Canadian government accounting. This study examines Canadian government accounting research coverage in financial, managerial, and auditing categories to date. This review identifies some under-explored areas, such as political influence on government managerial accounting practice, as well as unexplored areas, such as the influence of the internationally accepted conceptual framework on the quality of government accounting. This study contributes to the literature on government accounting by providing a review of the current literature and suggesting future research areas. This will be useful to researchers and practitioners in government accounting.
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 | 0.014 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.046 | 0.056 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".