The tone from the top: Editorials within the <i>Journal of Accountancy</i>
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
This study examines the tone of editorials published in the Journal of Accountancy. Drawing upon prior historical accounting and linguistic-anthropological research, the study proposes that editorials in practitioner journals like the Journal of Accountancy communicate an expressive tone to internal audiences. This tone from the top is important because it communicates a professional worldview to a geographically dispersed and somewhat heterogeneous readership. The study utilises computerised methods to identify the tone expressed about key topics in 46,189 sentence-level editorial utterances published in the Journal between 1916 and 1973. The analysis illustrates that topics involving external social actors, institutions and events were more likely to use a negative tone compared to the topics speaking about internal aspects of the profession. The study contributes to our understanding of professional accounting narratives by enumerating the topics that Journal of Accountancy editorials speak about, by illustrating how sentence tone varies depending on the sentence topic and by documenting how the prevalence of certain topics changes over time.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it