MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410557417 · doi:10.2308/tar-2024-0499

Tax, Technology, and Craftsmanship

2025· article· en· W4410557417 on OpenAlexaff
Vaughan S. Radcliffe, Crawford Spence, Mitchell Stein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Accounting Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEconomicsAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The impacts of technological change and automation are now being explored in audit, yet parallel studies of tax practitioners are more limited in scope. It cannot be assumed that the two practice areas will follow similar paths. The present study reports the results of a multimethod qualitative study of tax lawyers and accountants that suggests that tax work is more resistant to technology than auditing. Although automation is enthusiastically embraced in the area of tax compliance, this is not the case for tax advisory work. We explain this by reference to the commitment to craftsmanship that prevails in tax advisory work. Craftsmanship is important in understanding how experts respond to technological encroachment, and we suggest it has wider applicability to the study of financial occupations.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Accounting ReviewSame topicTaxation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207