MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1849234821 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v7n11p222

The Role of the Auditor in Planning and Reduce the Risk of IT Environment in Commercial Jordanian Banks

2015· article· en· W1849234821 on OpenAlex
Mohammed Naser Hamdan, Atallah Ahmad Al Hosban

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditInherent risk (accounting)AccountingBusinessSample (material)Financial statementAudit riskExternal auditorActuarial scienceAuditor's reportInternal audit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This study aimed to identify the role of the auditor’s judgment in dealing with the risks of the IT environment, so I studied the process of IT risk planning , and study how the auditor to reduce the risk of information technology. The study on designing a questionnaire covering the variables and hypotheses of the study , the questionnaire consists of 14 paragraphs, were used methods of statistics such as averages and standard deviations, and percentages and frequencies , and the study sample consisted of auditors (52) (external Auditors )for commercial banks in Jordan , most results are: Auditor determine the output of the likelihood of recurrence of the threat event (incidence of threat), and is expressed in a year ,Auditor Identify risks that cause weakness and imbalance core activities of the company, and monetary loss resulting from it , and Auditor prepare Prioritize risks according to their importance. Study recommendations are: its important to care that the members of the team in charge of identifying risks with a statement of clarification and details in favor of it, based on the knowledge that they own about those risks. And Auditor evaluate on an ongoing basis and on a periodic basis, and this determines the important information should be focused information security on them.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it