Auditing Subsequent Events from the Perspective of Auditors: Study from Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to identify to what extent auditors in Jordan comply with the requirements of the International Standard of Auditing No. 560, "Subsequent Events".The Researcher in the study used the descriptive approach and the analytical approach, through a questionnaire developed for the same purpose, and aims to answer the questions of the study, and to test hypotheses depending on a sample of (62) auditors working in auditing offices, they were selected randomly . The sample represents (32.8%) of the study population that consists of (189) auditing offices.The study shows that the auditors in Jordan comply with the requirements of the auditing standard No. (560) in auditing subsequent events in the period between the balance sheet date and the date of auditing report. They did not comply with the requirements of this standard after that date. The study shows also that the personal characteristics of the auditors (speciality, experience, CPA exams, and training) did not have statistically significant effects on their awareness of the importance of compliance with the requirements of this standard.The study recommends offices and auditing firms and the Association of Auditors to take care of training their auditors and employ only members who pass the CPA exam.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".