MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390342647 · doi:10.1111/1911-3838.12352

A Literature Review of Technology‐Related Research in Accounting Education: 2010–2020*

2023· review· en· W4390342647 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and XBRL
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This literature review includes 187 articles with a technology focus that were published during 2010–2020 in seven accounting education journals. We analyze these articles with a goal of identifying the research conducted at the intersection of technology and accounting education. Five accounting education areas of focus emerge, with each having prevalent themes. Within these themes, we identify the technological infusion and how it was applied or related to accounting education. Where feasible, we report information on the target expected use (users) within each of the five accounting focus areas in the article and present any relevant key findings. We conclude by identifying research voids and suggesting potential directions for future research. The analysis should aid current faculty in their efforts to infuse appropriate technology into accounting education with a goal of producing technologically savvy graduates.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.020
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.330 · 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