Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presentation highlights the importance of research on accounting and audit regulation and possible areas for development. My thoughts are grounded in a study (with Dasha Smirnow) of Canada's implementation of the Extractive Industries Transparency Index. I propose that accounting and management researchers incorporate insights from research in international regulation, notably recognizing the importance of the temporal dynamics between 'law on the books' and 'law in practice' (the recursivity of law), the importance of regulatory intermediaries (such as lawyers, auditors, and civil society organizations) and the significance of the managerialization of law. Notable recent work has recognized the need to go beyond simple 'capture' theories, the importance of the socio- economic context, the central role of regulatory staff and the shift to soft law. Our study introduces the idea of operationalization, a space between enactment and the implementation of rules and regulation and crucially highlights the dynamics of accounting regulation. JEL Codes: Keywords: Regulators, law on the books, law in practice, Canada
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".