{"id":"W2082047280","doi":"10.1080/09638180701819832","title":"Meta-analysis and the Accounting Literature: The Case of Audit Committee Independence and Financial Reporting Quality","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"European Accounting Review","topic":"Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":51,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"Queen's University; University of Waterloo; University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Accounting; Financial statement; Audit; Accrual; Quality audit; Business; Auditor independence; Audit evidence; Quality (philosophy); Independence (probability theory); Actuarial science; Joint audit; Internal audit; Earnings; Statistics","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaresearch","metaepi_narrow"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01969951,0.0004335335,0.001571598,0.0001786396,0.001243115,0.0006134129,0.0006961323,0.00005091544,0.0001233374],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04483338,0.0002511737,0.0007762655,0.002214738,0.000546395,0.00123507,0.001346539,0.0007384141,0.00004029876],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00001522924,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000023202,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001289721,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002081206,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9954324,0.0004531747,0.002314489,0.0007233885,0.0006530284,0.0004235296],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9539322,0.0006455544,0.04387121,0.001004132,0.0005284965,0.00001845134],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0002066427,0.0003160572,0.3983368,0.04203324,0.0538008,0.01079281,0.005850887,0.0002176432,0.00009894056,0.07371139,0.03752987,0.3771049],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.002107461,0.00001704702,0.4504744,0.002947591,0.174057,0.002198316,0.0005017772,0.0009759018,0.0000113027,0.001230447,0.363473,0.002005672],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.6442731,0.2965087,0.01315218,0.01113594,0.0004193764,0.00296721,0.00002596926,0.0003950523,0.03112252],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9814787,0.007453516,0.0002638223,0.00970647,0.0005943244,0.00002661332,0.00001044521,0.00005167183,0.0004144456],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.3750992,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999994,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.05440544353688167,"score_gpt":0.2771776366330103,"score_spread":0.2227721930961286,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}