Exploring Trust and the Auditor-Client Relationship: Factors Influencing the Auditor’s Trust of a Client Representative
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: This research examines financial statement auditors’ trust of members of client management in the context of a disagreement. In this descriptive field study involving 48 partners and 23 managers of Canadian offices of international accounting firms, we explore factors that can influence an auditor’s trust of client management. We find that a client representative’s openness of communication and demonstration of concern during an auditor-client disagreement are positively associated with the trust that an auditor feels for that individual. We also find that aspects of the auditor-client relationship are associated with auditor trust. Responses to general questions about trust and auditing indicate that our auditors believe it is important to trust their clients and that they attempt to ensure that trust does not impede professional skepticism, primarily through a rigorous audit process and the adoption of an independent attitude.
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 | 0.010 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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