Funding Dangers Posed by Extractive Industries International Accounting Standard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mr. Ellis has almost 30 years of mining industry experience as a geologist and minerals economist. He is the U.S. representative on the Extractive Industries Task Force of the International Valuation Standards Committee. Rapid implementation of the International Accounting Standards (IAS) for public financial reporting is taking place globally. European companies are required to convert to IAS by 2005. The author expects substantial acceptance of IAS in the U.S. and Canada by near that date. IAS provides for the current value of assets to be reported in the primary financial reports of companies. In November 2000, the Extractive Industries Steering Committee of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) released an Issues Paper seeking replies by 30 June 2001. Based on the responses received, the committee is scheduled to develop an accounting standard for the mining and petroleum industries for release in the fourth quarter of 2002 as part of IAS. The tentative views expressed by the IASC steering committee have a deja vu resemblance to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commision’sperspective expressed in its highly restrictive and antiquated Industry Guide 7. The question of whether to allow quantitative reporting of resources that are not reserves, as supplemental information, appears to have only barely remained on the edge of the table for discussion. The possibility of reporting an estimate of the current value of any category of such resources did not even reach the table. Disclosure of the current value of reserves would be restricted to a supplemental information section. If the standard is finalized with this perspective, the restriction to an historic cost accounting basis for reserves and resources will greatly handicap the financial abilities of the mining and petroleum industries relative to other industries allowed current value accounting of assets.
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 | 0.058 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.008 |
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".