Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian reporting standards do not require the auditor’s report to be qualified (modified) if the going concern contingency is described in the notes that accompany the financial statements. In response to criticism that this approach is passive and the signal mute (Bortiz 1991), the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants issued an exposure draft where the going concern uncertainty is highlighted separately as a “stand alone ” note. The intent of the note was to provide a stronger warning signal to financial statement users. The standard has been withdrawn (CICA 1999) but discussions with members of the standard setting body indicate that the issue is still of concern and that the project is currently being considered by the recently established International Auditing Practices Committee (IAPC). This study examines the incremental information content of the current Canadian standard relative to the proposed standard and the standards generally in force in developed foreign nations. The results indicate that Canadian bank loan officers, view more negatively and in ranked order the information presented in the foreign format to the proposed Canadian format to the current Canadian format. Although ranked ordered, the results further indicate that once the going concern note is fully disclosed in the notes, it does not matter if the going concern note is integrated with the other notes or
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.688 | 0.615 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".