AUDITORIA DAS RECEITAS PÚBLICAS: ANÁLISE CRÍTICA E CONTRIBUIÇÃO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente artigo tem por objetivo analisar as razoes pela qual os auditores internos e externos tem dificuldades em planejar e realizar auditoria na area das receitas publicas. Apresenta um estudo comparado sobre o tratamento dado a auditoria de receitas pela Argentina, Brasil, Bolivia, Mexico, Canada e Estados Unidos. Discorre sobre a logica atual adotada pelos administradores tributarios que, voluntaria ou involuntariamente, praticam uma verdadeira “blindagem” para o trabalho dos auditores internos ou externos. Inicialmente e apresentada uma visao contextual da ausencia de estudos e pesquisas que tratem da administracao das receitas publicas, em contraponto a abundante bibliografia no campo da administracao das despesas publicas. Em seguida considera-se a relevância da auditoria das receitas publicas e do controle a ela inerente, apresenta a estruturacao do processo do sistema de administracao tributaria e controle fiscal e, finalmente, relaciona sugestoes para a auditoria das receitas publicas e os aspectos mais relevantes que constituem o desafio a ser cumprido tanto pelos administradores tributarios responsaveis pelo controle interno primario como pelos auditores quando da realizacao das auditorias.
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 | 0.039 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".