Audit Education and Training: The Effect of Formal Studies and Work Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines work experience and formal studies as alternative means of audit education and training. The research instrument used in Gramling et al. (1996) was administered to Canadian and Australian undergraduate students at the beginning and end of their first audit subject. An important difference between the two groups was that the Canadian students had completed prior work experience under a Co-Operative (co-op) Education Program. We find that: (1) co-op (Canadian) students have pre-scores that are closer to practicing auditors relative to the pre-scores of nonco-op (Australian) students (an effect that we attribute to experience); (2) after completing their first undergraduate audit subject, nonco-op students have post-scores that are closer to those of practicing auditors relative to pre-scores (effects which we attribute to education); (3) the pre–post change referred to above is muted for co-op students (which we attribute to a hypothesized interaction effect between experience and education); and (4) co-op students have post-scores that are marginally closer to practicing auditors relative to the postscores of nonco-op students (implying that work experience and formal education are not perfect substitutes in audit educational training).
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 | 0.005 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".