MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411626137 · doi:10.2308/horizons-2024-126

Financial Reporting for the Knowledge Economy

2025· article· en· W4411626137 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Horizons · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting Theory and Financial Reporting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAccountingFinanceKnowledge economyEconomicsEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SYNOPSIS The North American corporate landscape is undergoing a $30 trillion transformation amid what many consider the fourth or fifth industrial revolution. Nearly half of the $60 trillion in stock market capitalization at the end of 2024 was driven by companies whose primary assets are intangible. This paper highlights the shortcomings of traditional accounting models when applied to modern, technology-driven firms. I propose several solutions to bridge these gaps, with particular emphasis on the most debated reform: recognizing internally developed intangible assets on the balance sheet. The discussion offers practical insights for professionals who are unfamiliar with recent developments or the ongoing controversy in this area. I also raise several questions that merit further research to enhance the relevance and reliability of financial reporting for contemporary corporations. JEL Classifications: M41.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.250 · 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