Factors Affecting Auditors' Assessments of Planning Materiality
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
This study investigates the planning materiality values used by auditors in The Netherlands for a sample of engagements performed by Big 5 and non-Big 5 firms in 1998–99. We find that, consistent with archival evidence from KPMG in Elliott (1983), planning materiality is not a constant percentage of a base, but increases at a decreasing rate with client size. In addition, we find that planning materiality values increase with the quality of the client's control environment and the magnitude of the client's rate of return on assets, while decreasing with the complexity of the client. We also find that Big 5 firms use lower planning materiality values than non-Big 5 firms, ceteris paribus, which is consistent with the production of relatively higher audit quality levels by the Big 5. Finally, we find that auditors use lower materiality values in situations where earnings might be managed to show a small profit or a small loss.
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 | 0.009 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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