Evidence of the audit expectation gap in Singapore
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
Reports a study in 1996 of the audit expectation gap in Singapore. The main aims were to measure the level and nature of expectation gap in the 1990s and compare with the results of Schelluch, Low and Low et al. . The motivation for performing this research in Singapore was due to lack of research on this issue in recent years and Singapore’s status as one of the “dragon countries”. The research method adopted is a replication of a study by Schelluch. The results found evidence of a wide audit expectation gap in Singapore in the areas of auditor responsibility for fraud prevention and detection, maintenance of accounting records, freedom of the entity from fraud, and auditor judgment in the selection of audit procedures. The results strongly support the adoption of the long‐form audit report in Singapore if Singaporean professionals are serious about reducing the expectation gap and improving decision making by financial statement users.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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