Fiscal Pedal: Fraud or Creative Accounting? A Theoretical Understanding of the Dangerous Fiscal Cycles that Affected the Brazilian Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay aims to discuss, in a theoretical way, how creative accounting is presented in Brazil in the years 2014 and 2015, which resulted in an impeachment process and affected the Brazilian economy. The methodology is qualitative with the application of content and document analysis techniques. The basis of the accounting information is taken from the analyzes of the special impeachment commission and the Federal Court of Auditors in relation to the accusation of a crime of fiscal responsibility to the detriment of the president of the republic. The research discusses the accounting operations carried out by the government and which resulted in the famous expression “fiscal pedaling”. In light of accounting theory Hendriksen and Van Breda (2018), there is a complexity in the analysis that has led to frequent divergences regarding the objectives of accounting and the nature of the economic environment in which it operates. Thus, as research results, it is possible to observe that the concepts given to creative accounting and fraud are close, but they are not similar, where characteristics such as intentional error and the transit of accounting operations, outside the accounting regulations and principles, end up elucidating the particularities of each phenomenon.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".