Relative Quality Assessment of Wikipedia Articles in Different Languages Using Synthetic Measure

Abstract. Fully automated reconstruction of high-detail building models on a national scale is challenging. It raises a set of problems that are seldom found when processing smaller areas, single cities. Often there is no reference, ground truth available to evaluate the quality of the reconstructed models. Therefore, only relative quality metrics are computed, comparing the models to the source data sets. In the paper we present a set of relative quality metrics that we use for assessing the quality of 3D building models, that were reconstructed in a fully automated process, in Levels of Detail 1.2, 1.3, 2.2 for the whole of the Netherlands. The source data sets for the reconstruction are the Dutch Building and Address Register (BAG) and the National Height Model (AHN). The quality assessment is done by comparing the building models to these two data sources. The work presented in this paper lays the foundation for future research on the quality control and management of automated building reconstruction. Additionally, it serves as an important step in our ongoing effort for a fully automated building reconstruction method of high-detail, high-quality models.

Download Full-text

The Effect of Quality Assessment and Directional Goal Commitment on Auditors' Acceptance of Client-Preferred Accounting Methods

The Accounting Review ◽

10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.759 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 78 (3) ◽

pp. 759-778 ◽

Cited By ~ 229

Author(s):

Kathryn Kadous ◽

S. Jane Kennedy ◽

Mark E. Peecher

Keyword(s):

Experimental Investigation ◽

Quality Assessment ◽

Motivated Reasoning ◽

Goal Commitment ◽

Reporting Standards ◽

Reporting Decisions ◽

Quality Assessments ◽

Relative Quality ◽

Effectiveness Of Regulation

Previous research demonstrates that auditors' directional goals influence their reporting decisions. For example, when auditors have goals of accepting client-preferred accounting methods, they tend to exploit ambiguity in reporting standards to justify those methods, even when they are aggressive (Hackenbrack and Nelson 1996). We report an experimental investigation of the likely effectiveness of regulation designed to curb this tendency. Specifically, regulators suggest that having auditors identify benchmarks or assess the quality of various methods will “raise the bar” for method acceptability, thereby reducing auditor acceptance of aggressive reporting methods. However, this reasoning ignores the fact that ambiguity typically surrounds quality assessment. Following motivated reasoning theory, we argue that, in order to meet the increased standard for acceptability, auditors with high commitment to directional goals will exploit the ambiguity surrounding the quality of various methods when making quality assessments, with the result that the client-preferred method will be deemed best, or at least of high enough relative quality to be used. This theory suggests that auditor acceptance will increase with goal commitment, and that the increase will be most dramatic when quality assessment is performed. Results of our experiment support our hypotheses that performing a quality assessment amplifies the effects of auditors' directional goals on their acceptance of client-preferred methods and on their ratings of the quality of that method. Moreover, auditors making quality assessments are more likely to identify the client's method as the most appropriate method when they are more committed to their directional goals. An implication of our theory and results is that regulation (such as SAS No. 90) that requires auditors to make quality assessments may decrease auditors' objectivity when auditors have directional goals to accept client methods.

Download Full-text