MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W602470173 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511494772

Accounting Principles for Lawyers

2006· book· en· W602470173 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Holgate

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2006
Typebook
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingAccounting standardAppealFinancial accountingBusinessMark-to-market accountingProfit (economics)Positive accountingCash flowWork (physics)Accounting information systemEconomicsPolitical scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many lawyers, especially those dealing with commercial matters, need to understand accounting yet feel on shaky ground in the area. This book is written specifically for them. It breaks down and makes clear basic concepts (such as the difference between profit and cash flow), the accounting profession and the legal and regulatory framework within which accounting operates. The relevant provisions of the Companies Act 1985 are discussed at some length. Holgate explains generally accepted accounting principles in the UK (GAAP), the trend towards global harmonisation and the role of international accounting standards. He then deals with specific areas such as group accounts, acquisitions, tax, leases, pensions, financial instruments, and realised profits, focusing in each case on those aspects that are likely to confront lawyers in their work. This book will appeal to the general practitioner as well as to lawyers working in corporate, commercial, and tax law.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.012

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207