Auditor Independence in Canada: A Historical Perspective — From Shareholder Auditors to Modern‐Day Audit Committees*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper uses the theoretical framework of Goldman and Barlev (1974) to examine auditor independence in Canada. It traces the historical development of the auditor's role in the 19th century and the beginning of the auditor's relationship with shareholders and management. It shows how, following the separation of management from shareholding, management's ability to influence auditors undermined auditor independence. The paper traces attempts by legislators and regulatory bodies to limit management's influence over auditors and to correct the asymmetry of their relationship. It notes that recent changes to legislation and rules of professional conduct are no longer proactive, but are reactions to corporate scandals in Canada and the United States. The paper argues that although future changes will occur to redress the imbalance, only structural changes are likely to provide a real solution to auditor independence problems. However, it is likely that such changes will be resisted by the accounting profession.
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.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it