The Evolution of the Standard Unqualified Auditor's Report in Canada / L'ÉVOLUTION DU RAPPORT TYPE DU VÉRIFICATEUR AU CANADA
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
ABSTRACT This study examines the historical development of the auditor's report in Canada. The auditor's report has been significantly influenced by British and U.S. legislation and practices. The English Joint Stock Companies Act of 1844 required compulsory audits and the British audit report was introduced in North America shortly after the introduction of this Act. The legislature prescribed an audit but it did not determine the form and content of the auditor's report; these were left to the individual practitioner. The British influence was strong in Canada up to the 1930s. However, from this time onward, the U.S. influence began to grow. The impact of the landmark case of Ultramares v. Touche on third‐party liability and consequent change in the auditor's report is analyzed. The paper uses institutional theory to explore reasons for the similarities of the auditor's report under British influence and under American influence. Specifically, the paper examines how the mechanisms of mimetic, coercive, and normative isomorphism led to institutional change in the accounting profession as organizations adapted their auditors' reports to achieve greater legitimacy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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