Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2010, Madison Press Books published our book, Swindlers, which covered topics related to the serious shortcomings in Canada's supposed investor protection system.Although Swindlers made various references to Canada's then-proposed adoption of IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards), implementation of IFRS did not occur in Canada until 2011-2012.Although we predicted in 2010, and earlier, that IFRS was too weak and ill-grounded conceptually to be able to serve as an International Standard, sufficient practice evidence was not yet available in 2010.A follow-up book was needed to show that Canada's lawmakers had deeply erred in permitting IFRS to be utilized in Canada.Many previously existing flaws in Canada's investor protection system became magnified under IFRS.Astoundingly, IFRS conflicted not only with decades of trying to improve the rights of investors, but it also contradicted Canadian laws and business valuation practices.Excessive power was granted to corporate executives to "cook the books," and mislead investors.After 2011-2012, it became obvious that major deficiencies in our laws, in absent oversight and in IFRS are combining to play directly into the hands of financial tricksters.In essence, no reliable group in Canada is even trying to protect prospective shareholders and creditors.Our components of a theoretical investor protection system are just not functioning in Canada.The "buck is repeatedly being passed" with nobody willing to admit that a whole new system is needed; the IFRS system has been and is just too flawed to be repairable; it is embarrassing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.364 | 0.222 |
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".