Auditors General ' s impact on administrations: a pan-Canadian study (2001-2011)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The influence that Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) exert on management of administrations through performance audits has been examined very little and questioned even less. This study of the impact of Auditors General (AG) on management of six Canadian administrations for the 2001-2011 period aims to highlight the auditors ' successes and the limits imposed on them in their role of agents of change for administrations. Design/methodology/approach – A survey was sent out to a total of 125 respondents identified by the authorities of the targeted organizations. Eighty-seven usable questionnaires were completed (70% response rate). Findings – AG appear to influence the organizational life of Canadian entities to a moderate extent. The figures suggest that auditors do exert an influence on the organizations audited, but their influence attempts fail fairly often. Indirect powers to reward and punish conferred on AG by their institutional status are conditioned not only by the will of the central and political authorities of the entities audited but also by the will and capacity of parliamentarians to assume real control over the executive branch. One explanation for this mitigated influence is that the “obligatory reverence” that SAIs inspire in administrations masks the real value that auditees perceive in auditors ' work. Research limitations/implications – Given the ten-year period that the study covered, it had to deal with the mortality of respondents and the loss of organizational memory. Practical implications – The study gives insights about the auditees ' recognition regarding the auditors ' added value to administrations through their performance audits. Originality/value – This paper fulfils an identified need for further empirical research on AG ' s impact on administrations through their performance audits.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".