MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W95947506 · doi:10.5206/cie-eci.v39i1.9143

Capacity Building in Accounting in an Australian University – Lessons for South East Asia

2010· article· fr· W95947506 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roger Burritt

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative and International Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePromotion (chess)HumanitiesArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consideration is given to the promotion of and barriers to developing the intellectual capital of academics in triple bottom line accounting for countries in South East Asia. A range of considerations that promote intellectual capacity building in accounting are outlined. The main problems associated with development are also outlined. Le but de cet article est d’analyser le pour et le contre de la formation des universitaires en comptabilité, tout en adoptant une vision de responsabilité sociale (ou de Triple Résultat) dans les pays du sud est asiatique. L’auteur discute des moyens nécessaires pour promouvoir le développement de compétences en comptabilité. Il offre aussi une élaboration des problèmes principaux associés au développement.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative and International EducationSame topicAccounting and Organizational ManagementFrench-language works237,207