{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019536019536019536, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003663003663003663, 'mean_word_length': 5.776859504132231, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Categorising intangible assets: are the new accounting standards consistent with practice?

This study combines a management perspective and real financial quantitative data to present an accounting classification for Intangible Assets (IAs). Contract capital provides an adjusting and complementary effect to other capital within IAs. Moreover, we discovered that if contract capital is solely considered without interaction effects, it could hardly demonstrate any effects on IAs. Thus, in order to examine Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 141 from the management perspective, we believe such a classification calls for further adjustments. The current regulations require that separate listings of IAs regarding contract capital should be altered so as to maximise the effects of classification.