A Knowledge Synthesis of Anti‐Black Racism in Accounting Research*<sup>†</sup>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This structured literature review synthesizes studies that have investigated questions related to anti‐Black racism—namely, the discrimination and marginalization of Black people—in the accountancy literature and identifies opportunities for future research. This study is part of a larger research project that reviewed 161 articles and identified four themes relevant to accounting research on discrimination in general: anti‐Black racism, imperialism and postcolonialism, intersectionality, and diversity. Based on the 25 anti‐Black racism articles reviewed, this paper finds four key subthemes: demand for accountancy services and racial discrimination in accountancy practice, the racialization of professional accounting qualifications, Black professionals in academia, and the supply‐side fallacy. Furthermore, because studies at the intersection of anti‐Black racism and accounting are limited, this study proposes future research directions that will advance knowledge on various topics related to anti‐Black racism.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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 it