The roots of operational (value-for-money) auditing in English-speaking nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Operational auditing, also known as comprehensive auditing, management auditing, performance auditing, and value-for-money auditing, has had a diverse history across countries and professional disciplines. Although operational auditing is primarily a function of the internal and governmental auditor, public accountants and management consultants also perform similar audits. The roots of operational auditing go in multiple directions, as various organisations have played major roles in its development. Influential organisations were the General Accounting Office (GAO), under the leadership of T. Coleman Andrews; the American Institute of Management, led by Jackson Martindell; the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation, under the leadership of J. J. Macdonell; and the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), under the leadership of many individuals. Although the work of Martindell was carried on simultaneously with that of the IIA and the GAO, there was little influence of one group on another. In other words, two different professions developed operational auditing independently, but simultaneously. The US was the leader in the development of the concept of operational auditing. Surprisingly, despite its leadership in operational auditing development, principles developed in the US have not been adopted by other nations. Instead, Canada developed its own system, which was later partly copied by others in the British Commonwealth. This historical view of operational auditing across English-speaking countries provides evidence that international diffusion and cross-disciplinary diffusion of auditing ideas has been minimal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".