Biological Assets in Agricultural Accounting: A Systematic Review of the Application of IAS 41
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The valuation of biological assets represents a crucial component for the generation of accounting information, especially in the context of the agricultural sector, where assets subject to continuous transformation processes predominate. This study aims to analyze, through a systematic review of the literature, how the measurement methods established by International Accounting Standard 41 (IAS 41) affect the quality, accuracy, and usefulness of accounting reports. The results show that the correct valuation of biological assets significantly improves strategic and financial decision-making by providing more reliable and representative data on the economic reality of the sector. Finally, the study highlights the main practical challenges in the application of IAS 41, including fair value volatility, the subjectivity of estimates, the limited availability of reliable data, and the need for more flexible accounting frameworks that consider the cultural, climatic, and productive realities of each environment. Based on these findings, the importance of strengthening transparency and accounting disclosure and adapting measurement methods to the particularities of the agricultural sector in order to improve the quality of information and the confidence of external users is highlighted.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it