Auditing, integral approach to quarterly reporting, and cosmetic earnings management
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
Purpose This study examines the effect of auditing and the integral approach to interim reporting on cosmetic earnings management, referred by Kinnunen and Koskela as earnings manipulative behavior to report earnings numbers to achieve key cognitive reference points represented by N ×10 k . Design/methodology/approach Using Benford's Law, the analysis employs 182,278 positive quarterly earnings observations and 103,470 negative quarterly observations for all publicly listed US companies from 1993 to 2003. Findings The empirical results show that firms tended to engage in cosmetic earnings management in each of the four fiscal quarters. More importantly, it was found that the degree of cosmetic earnings management is significantly less severe in the fourth fiscal quarter, which is the only quarter audited, than any of the previous quarters. This result suggests that the auditor plays an important role in reducing the cosmetic earnings manipulative behavior. Originality/value The findings of the study add more evidence to the ongoing debate about the effectiveness of auditing in preventing earnings management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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