MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115677780 · doi:10.2308/ajpt-50514

The Effect of Human Resource Investment in Internal Control on the Disclosure of Internal Control Weaknesses

2013· article· en· W2115677780 on OpenAlexaff
Jong‐Hag Choi, Sunhwa Choi, Chris E. Hogan, Joonil Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueAuditing A Journal of Practice & Theory · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAccountingControl (management)Investment (military)Human resourcesProxy (statistics)Internal controlControl environmentHuman resource managementInternal auditAuditEconomicsJoint auditManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This paper investigates the effect of human resource investment in internal control over financial reporting on the disclosure of internal control weaknesses at both the firm and the individual department level. Using a unique reporting requirement for Korean-listed firms, this study uses the ratio of the number of employees involved with the implementation of internal controls (hereafter, IC personnel) to the total number of employees of the firm as a proxy for a firm's human resource investment in internal control. We find that the proportion of IC personnel and the change of the proportion within the firm and several key departments are negatively associated with the disclosure of internal control weaknesses. We also find that a change in IC personnel is positively associated with the likelihood of remediation of the internal control weaknesses. These findings provide valuable insights into the role of human resource investment in determining the strength of a firm's internal controls over financial reporting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAuditing A Journal of Practice & TheorySame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207