Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the restrains of the CPA auditing system, it is explained that defects existing in the present auditing system result in the dissimulation of the auditing function. The CPA is placed in an unfavorable situation as compared to the Listed Companies, which leads him to submit fraudulent auditing reports according to the intention of the Listed Companies. Therefore this paper presents some reforming ideas on how to perfect the CPA auditing system. Keywords: CPA, auditing system, auditing fraud, fraudulent financial statements, listed company Resume: De la restriction du systeme d’apurement des comptes , ce texte expose les defectuosites du systeme actuel , qui est defavorable dans l’echange des interets entre l’expert-comptable et la societe sur marche , et qui , en meme temps , entraine l’alienation de la fonction d’apurement des comptes . Les experts-comptable , a contre-coeur , sont obliges de faire des rapports freudeurs de finance selon l’intention des societes . Ce texte propose des idees de reforme pour mettre en jeu le systeme d’apurement des comptes . Mots-cles: CPA, systeme d’apurement des comptes, fraude de verification des comptes, rapport fraudeur de finance, societe sur le marche 摘要：從註冊會計師審計制度存在的約束條件，說明由於現有審計制度的缺陷，導致審計功能異化，使得註冊會計師在與被審計單位的利益交換中處於劣勢地位，不得不根據被審計單位的授意違心地出具不真實的審計報告。文中就如何發揮註冊會計師審計制度作用的提出改革思路。 關鍵詞：註冊會計師審計制度；審計欺詐；虛假財務報告；上市公司
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".