GSA Actions Leading to Proposed Debarment of WorldCom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correspondence issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "On June 25, 2002, WorldCom, Inc., announced its intention to restate its financial statements for 2001 and the first quarter of 2002, reducing previously reported earnings by nearly $4 billion. WorldCom's announcement sparked a series of investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Justice, and WorldCom's Board of Directors, among others, and eventually resulted in criminal charges against six of its corporate officials. WorldCom filed for bankruptcy protection in July 2002, and, over the next several months, announced restatements for additional periods. On July 31, 2003--over a year after WorldCom first announced its intention to restate its earnings--the General Services Administration (GSA) formally proposed the company for debarment, making the company ineligible for future government contracts. When WorldCom consented to a 3-year administrative agreement allowing GSA to continue monitoring the company's conduct, GSA terminated the debarment proceedings on January 7, 2004. House Report 108-243, which accompanied the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, required us to review the actions GSA took between WorldCom's June 2002 announcement and GSA's July 2003 decision to propose the company for debarment. We agreed to (1) identify the GSA offices involved and the actions they took and (2) describe the sources of information on which GSA relied in considering WorldCom for debarment."
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.026 |
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".