Communicating Norms of Conduct: The Semantics of Professionalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper explores how two public accounting associations, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), conveyed norms of conduct to members and students through editorials published in the Journal of Accountancy and CA Magazine from 1916 to 1973, with a focus on the use of profession-related terms. Drawing on Bakhtin’s concept of stylistic aura and employing advanced textual analysis techniques, the study reveals that profession stem words played a key role in communicating these norms by synthesizing varied normative concerns into a cohesive professional discourse applicable across settings. The semantic meanings of these sentences shifted over time and between journals. Additionally, the study finds that utterances with profession stem words were more pervasive and better at highlighting competing concerns than ethics stem words. This study contributes to our understanding of accounting association communication processes, specifically communication via professional narratives.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".