MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Agentic AI: Evaluating Value Creation Stories of Individual Companies From a Stakeholder Primacy Perspective

2025· article· W7125916013 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Auditing · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditSustainabilityStakeholderPerspective (graphical)Value creationValue (mathematics)Stakeholder theoryStakeholder analysisCorporate sustainability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This research explores an evolutionary AI-driven auditing system for the public interest that connects agentic AI and stakeholder primacy—two emerging discourses rarely bridged in current accounting and auditing research—and integrates insights from sustainability accounting, AI auditing, and regulatory policy, demonstrating how technology can support public-interest assurance. The integrated reports of a Japanese telecommunications company, which aims for carbon neutrality, and a Japanese electric company, which aims for sustainable development for its local communities, are analyzed. The results show that an AI agent helps a practitioner judge sustainability information from a different perspective, provided by another company’s integrated report.</p>

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it