Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures: House Interparliamentary Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "GAO agreed to assist Congress in evaluating the extent to which the Schedules of Receipts, Disbursements, and Fund Balance for five Interparliamentary Groups appropriately reflect the actual cash receipts and disbursements and related fund balances for the years ended December 31, 2002, and 2001. These five groups were the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group, Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group, Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue, United States Group of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and British-American Parliamentary Group. Congress asked us to (1) compare recorded receipts to appropriation requests, bank statements, and other supporting documentation; (2) compare recorded disbursements to vouchers, canceled checks, and other supporting documentation; and (3) recalculate and compare fund balance with amounts recorded in the general journal and Schedule of Receipts, Disbursements, and Fund Balance for 2002 and 2001. We were not engaged to perform, and did not perform, an examination, the objective of which would have been to express an opinion on the amounts reported on the schedules. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that we would have reported them."
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 | 0.099 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.190 | 0.102 |
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".