Hacia una óptima aplicación del valor razonable y el deterioro de los activos en Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El trabajo tiene como propósito fundamental, sugerir un adecuado manejo de las normas NIIF 13 y NIC 36 dentro del registro y presentación de los estados financieros, acorde con los marcos regulatorios emitidos por International Accounting Standards Board “IASB”, máxima autoridad en materia contable a nivel mundial, basado en los principios de ética y responsabilidad de parte de los generadores de la información. Lo anterior, en razón a la inquietud que surge para los usuarios de la información contable, respecto al impacto en la aplicación de los conceptos “Valor Razonable” y “Deterioro de los Activos”, ya que la normatividad emitida no se considera clara y completa en cuanto a los temas de verificabilidad en la valuación de los activos, así como en la frecuencia de las mismas, con el fin de brindar una información confiable y oportuna, que facilite la toma de decisiones en los entes económicos y que permita evaluar fiablemente opciones de inversión en el mercado.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".