MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390196847 · doi:10.47191/ijcsrr/v6-i12-64

Implementation of Decision-Making Methods in Determining the Object of Customs and Excise Audit: Study on DGCE Regional Office of West Java for Quarter IV 2023

2023· article· en· W4390196847 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Current Science Research and Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditExciseRanking (information retrieval)Quarter (Canadian coin)BusinessObject (grammar)Process (computing)ComparabilityComputer scienceAccountingGeographyEconomicsMathematicsInformation retrievalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to select the best customs and excise audit objects using several criteria that have been determined in this research by implementing the decision-making method in the determination process so that the process will be optimal. In this study, researchers used the VFT method to determine the criteria for determining customs and excise audit objects. Next, the researcher will select several company objects that are feasible to be audited from several nominations given using the SMART method. As a result, 10 criteria were found and 5 companies with the highest value ranking were selected as audit objects from 21 nominated companies which were expected to provide optimal quality audit results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it