Clients' Preferred Relationship Approach with their Financial Statement Auditor
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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