Broadening the Fraud Triangle: Instrumental Climate and Fraud
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch, Scholarly communication
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: Observational
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.247
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.999
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
ABSTRACT We survey a unique respondent group of fraud perpetrators, auditors who investigated fraud, and employees who witnessed fraud within organizations, to identify whether, and how, an instrumental organizational climate is associated with fraud. We define an instrumental climate as one in which employees make decisions in their own or the organization's best interests to the exclusion of ethical concerns. We find that 39 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that an instrumental climate was present when fraud was perpetrated. This climate is associated with particular elements of the fraud triangle including motives such as a malevolent work environment and social incentives and pressures, as well as rationalizations that are primarily oriented toward others. One specific rationalization—helping the company—draws attention to the phenomenon of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Our results suggest that fraud has an important social dimension that is largely neglected by current fraud triangle interpretations.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Behavioral Research in Accounting
- Topic
- Ethics in Business and Education
- Field
- Decision Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- Queen's University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Rationalization (economics)RespondentAuditMisconductIncentiveConstructive fraudBusinessPsychologyPublic relationsAccountingSocial psychologyPolitical scienceLawEconomics
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes