Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Increased globalization and cross border trade suggest the importance of consistency in internal controls and the internal auditing activities within organizations when doing business with a region's neighbors. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether there are differences in the demographics of internal auditors in the neighboring regions of the USA, Canada, and many Latin American countries, their organizations' compliance with the Institute of Internal Auditors' (IIA) International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), and the skills and competencies that are most important to perform the profession of internal auditing. Design/methodology/approach Data were selected from the IIA's 2006 Common Body of Knowledge database created by the Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation. χ2‐tests or F‐tests were used to determine if there were differences in the responses between internal auditors from the US, Canadian and Latin American respondents. Findings Although there is less compliance and greater satisfaction with the Standards in participating Latin American countries, the findings indicate remarkable consistency in the USA, Canada, and Latin American countries in their application and compliance with the Standards and the kinds of skills and competencies respondents indicate are important for the practice of internal auditing. Global competition, increased communication and global stakeholder expectations have resulted in increased utilization of internal auditing in the Americas. Practical implications Reliability of organizational systems, output and performance must be continually evaluated to ensure effectiveness, efficiency and compliance with entity policies and procedures. One role of the internal auditor is to evaluate this performance using globally accepted Standards, frameworks and procedures. Adding value by making suggestions for system improvements and to provide assurance on the adequacy of system controls to stakeholders at all levels and geographical locations should insure the future of the internal auditing profession. Originality/value There has been nothing written about the comparison of the internal auditing profession's usage of the IIA Standards in the USA, Canada, and Latin America. As many organizations are doing business across these borders, reliance on the information provided by their suppliers and customers is important to executives. Systems that are monitored by internal auditors who follow the IIA's Standards should provide more assurance about the reliability of that information. This paper compares the usage of the IIA's Standards by internal auditors in the USA, Canada, and participating Latin American countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".