MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409605503 · doi:10.62477/jkmp.v25i2.512

Blockchain and CPAs: Assessing Preparedness in a Technologically Evolving Profession

2025· article· en· W4409605503 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joanna Kardys-Stone, Karina Kasztelnik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Knowledge Management and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicResearch, Science, and Academia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlockchainPreparednessMedical professionBusinessEngineering ethicsComputer scienceComputer securityMedicineMedical educationEngineeringEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blockchain technology is reshaping industries with its emphasis on transparency, security, and decentralization. As this technology becomes integrated into business operations, Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) face new challenges in adapting their practices to meet the clients' needs using blockchain. This research examines the preparedness of CPAs assessing their knowledge, skills, and competencies related to blockchain technology. Utilizing interviews, the study provides a comprehensive evaluation of how well CPAs are equipped to handle the complexities of blockchain. The findings highlight significant gaps in blockchain education and training within the accounting profession, indicating needs for targeted professional development initiatives. The study identifies critical areas where CPAs need support and offers actionable recommendations to enhance their readiness in an evolving technological landscape. Addressing these gaps will better position the accounting profession to meet demands of the future where blockchain technology plays a central role in financial reporting, auditing, and compliance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Knowledge Management and PracticeSame topicResearch, Science, and AcademiaFrench-language works237,207