Adoption of the budget by competence in Brazil based on comparative experiences in the USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To analyze the feasibility of adopting competency budgeting in Brazil. Methodology: Qualitative, exploratory, bibliographic, documental, and content analysis nature, with the cataloguing of the material based on environmental attributes (political commitment, human capital, long-term sustainability, and macroeconomic policy) and technical attributes (depreciation and valuation of assets, capital expenditure, symmetry between reports, recognition of benefits and accountability). The work is comparative in nature based on the practices adopted in the USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Results: The examinations of environmental attributes in comparison with technical attributes were more homogeneous in reference to the countries analysed. It was identified that the technical attributes were the ones that were more casuistic, aiming to meet the specific situations of the participating countries. In Brazil, if the reform were implemented, the study pointed to attributes related to macroeconomic (environmental) policy and accountability (technical) as being the most favorable. Contributions of the Study: It was identified that the most advanced experiences on accrual budgeting come from countries of Anglo-Saxon origin, whose accounting systems are convergent with those used by companies. In this sense, it is hoped that the work can contribute to the broadening of the discussion of the systematics, in view of the indication of environmental and technical attributes considered to facilitate and/or hinder the process.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".