Audit Review: The Impact of Discussion Timing and Familiarity
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
I investigate how the trend in audit practice of including face-to-face discussions between the preparer and the reviewer affects audit team performance. Specifically, I focus on the timing of reviewer/preparer discussion and explore whether performance of the audit team in a task involving a review by interview process is affected by the timing of the discussion. The discussion timing compares senior/manager teams when review discussions are held either concurrently with or following the manager's review of the senior's work. Additionally, I explore how reviewers' familiarity with preparers may also affect the audit team performance. Familiarity is examined by comparing senior/manager teams where the managers had either positive prior involvement or no prior involvement with the reviewed seniors. The audit team performance in generating hypotheses in a preliminary analytical review case was measured to assess any differences due to those attributes. Consistent with expectations, I find that post-review discussion and familiarity with the preparers are both, independently, important sources of audit team performance gains in a review process that includes face-to-face discussions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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