Bibliographic record
Abstract
On evaluation of the effectiveness of the accounting systems implemented at lx>th levels, it was decided to purchase or develop a microcomputer-based accounting model to reduce secretarial time and to provide easily obtainable budget summaries and reports.The new system would meet the present organization needs without a major change to purchasing and accounting procedures.Schools would be able to track purchase orders and invoices to user-defined budget areas and account summaries would be provided in real time.Alberta Education account summaries were required at the school level to provide a reconciliation report to the monthly central office report.Two schools previously piloted a microcomputer spreadsheet model for accounting, but reports were difficult to obtain, and the manipulation of a large worksheet was cumbersome.As a result, spreadsheets were rejected for system-wide adoption.Commercial accounting software packages were reviewed, but rejected for the lack of encumbrance processing, or for cost considerations.On completion of Management Arts 3760, Topical Issues in Data Base Management, I offered to develop a program under a dBASE III Plus environment.This process allowed the development of a package to reflect the exact requirements in Yellowhead School Division. 1987-88 Development and ImplementationDuring the first three weeks in August, 1987, program specifications were completed and I wrote the first version of the program.Four schools in Yellowhead had an installed office computer system and agreed to pilot the new program.During September and October, a number of program updates were completed to fix errors (primarily centering on error trapping).By January, 1988, six additional schools purchased office computers out of school capital funds and began using the accounting program.In March, 1988, the division budget was approved, detailing the installation of an office microcomputer in the remaining Yellow head schools and system-wide implementation began in September, 1988. 1988-89 Coding UpdateAfter field testing the program for 18 months, the secretaries requested a significant rewrite to the data entry portion of the program to reduce data entry times, a tick-off option to assist central office reconciliation, a utilities section for forwarding to a new fiscal year, and a new routine for budget area calculations to reduce data processing times.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".