Meta-analysis and the Accounting Literature: The Case of Audit Committee Independence and Financial Reporting Quality
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
We conduct a meta-analysis (MA) of the association between audit committee (AC) independence and financial reporting quality (FRQ). Although we cannot reliably aggregate results across studies in a statistical sense because of inconsistencies in defining FRQ and the absence of replication studies, quantitative review techniques yield three conclusions: (1) The use of different FRQ measures in the AC independence literature explains about half of the variation in results across studies. (2) Audit committees are more effective at enhancing audit quality (e.g. through averting going-concern reports and auditor resignations) than they are at fostering financial statement quality (e.g. by making high quality accruals and avoiding restatements). AC independence can even reduce apparent financial statement quality by identifying the need for restatements and remedial, abnormal accruals. (3) Financial statement quality and audit quality are complementary contributors to FRQ. The statistical and methodological difficulties we encounter lead us to posit that the dearth of MA studies in accounting and auditing stems from similar difficulties in applying MA to other topics. We present evidence consistent with publication biases and perverse researcher incentives being responsible for the difficulties.
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 | 0.020 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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