MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055690138 · doi:10.1111/1467-6281.00116

Commonwealth Convergence Toward a Narrower Scope of Auditor Liability to Third Parties for Negligent Misstatements

2002· article· en· W2055690138 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAbacus · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityAuditCommonwealthScope (computer science)AccountingBusinessConvergence (economics)Balance (ability)Legal liabilityLaw and economicsLawEconomicsPolitical scienceMacroeconomicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There have been fundamental shifts in the legal liabilities of auditors in the twentieth century. The article analyses myriad cases. It reveals that case rulings in the later decades moderated previous decisions that had resulted in an expansion of the scope of auditor liability. It shows that there has been a convergence in approach within Commonwealth nations in respect of auditor liability for negligent misstatements. Numerous factors are identified that explain, first the expansion of auditor liability in the early to middle decades of the twentieth century, and also its subsequent reversal in latter decades. The article concludes by arguing that the current positions not likely to remain. The decisions of the courts are shown to be the products of continual struggle to balance the respective rights and interests of auditors, investors (both current and prospective) and the wider community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it