Clients' Preferred Relationship Approach with their Financial Statement Auditor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Our published study, “An Empirical Study of Canadian Companies to Determine Clients' Preferred Relationship Approach with Their Financial Auditor” (Fontaine and Pilote 2011), examines the type of relationship that clients prefer to have with their financial auditors. We surveyed 306 Canadian financial executives (clients); in general, clients prefer more of a relational approach (i.e., an ongoing process based on cooperation, communication, and trust) than a transactional approach (i.e., competition and self-interest, resulting in an arm's-length relationship). Further, clients seek information and advice beyond core audit services. However, despite clients' desire for close relationships, they also want to remain at arm's length from their auditor, as required by the auditor's code of ethics. Our study contributes to audit practice by providing direct evidence of client relationship preferences, which could help auditors to enhance client relationships. In addition, evidence of the client's desire to remain at arm's length (i.e., respecting auditor independence) could be of interest to audit practitioners and audit standard setters.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".