Evolución histórica de la contabilidad de costes y de gestión (1885-2005)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research presents the historic events of the cost and management accounting over the last 120 years (1885-2005) following authors such as Horngren (1982), Kaplan (1984) y Johnson y Kaplan (1988). Nevertheless, this explanation does not pretend to be exhaustive and closed but it could be extended to deeper studies about another countries and periods. In summary, we can say that the management accounting has been evolved with the changes in the organizing and productive environments of the businesses. In spite of the fact that, since we have news of the existence of the mankind there have been evidences of economic calculation, one must wait until the last third of the 19th century to find regular assignments of the indirect cost to the products and the utilization of indicators for management purposes. Likewise, it has been seen that during the first years of the 20th century there was a period of significant evolution in the management accounting as the result of the apparition of the Movement of the Scientific Direction of the Work by Taylor. The first quarter of the 20th century also supposed an evolution in the management accounting as the result of the creation of multinational businesses. That meant the apparition of new indicators for the assignment of resources. Nevertheless, according to Johnson y Kaplan (1988), from the third decade of the 20th century to the eighties, there has not been a significant evolution due, above all, to the importance given to the financial statements. Nevertheless, Horngren (1982) does not see the period uniformly and identifies three phases in this evolution. A point of inflection has been the organizing and technological changes occurred during the eighties. These have supposed that during the last decade of the 20th century and the first years of the 21st one the management accounting has recovered a new vigour in the research and in the practice. In any case, the lineal presentation of the evidences used here does not mean to be unique. In fact, the diversity of approaches to the historic facts, have supposed the re-emerge of the research in the last decade. In any case, we coincided with Hernández (1996) in the sense that the historic investigation should be supported in primary sources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".