Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Audits are examinations of information for the purpose of evaluating its reliability. The information in question may be financial or nonfinancial, and may be intended for users of information who are either internal or external to the organization. The objective of external auditing is to increase the confidence of external stakeholders regarding the quality of the financial information produced by organizations. The globalization of capital markets has had an impact on the ethics of auditing, because cultural diversity presents major issues regarding appropriate international ethical standards, and because of increased attention by capital market regulators to the inter‐jurisdictional aspects of auditing. Auditors have an obligation to make in the interest of external stakeholders and in the public interest. The central problem is that, for auditing to be an important factor in capital markets, auditors must be independent of their clients. However, there are built‐in factors that make solving this conflict of interest difficult. One of the fundamental principles of accounting and auditing is confidentiality. Recent developments internationally involving unethical and illegal acts of companies have caused regulators and ethics standard setters to consider the conditions under which confidentiality may be or should be breached.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".