MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129616399 · doi:10.2308/bria-10044

Nonaudit Services and Independence in Appearance: Decision Context Matters

2011· article· en· W2129616399 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Research in Accounting · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditor independenceAuditContext (archaeology)Independence (probability theory)WitnessAsset (computer security)BusinessAccountingValue (mathematics)Task (project management)Auditor's reportComputer securityEconomicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawInternal auditManagementJoint audit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper reports the results of two experiments designed to examine users' assessment of the provision of nonaudit services (NAS) on auditor independence. By design, each experiment includes a different decision context. In the first experiment, users witness a large decline in asset value and decide whether to sue the auditor in an effort to recoup losses (as often occurs with accounting scandals). In the second experiment, users assess asset value, which offers a more mundane context. We contend that decision context influences users' motives, such that the auditor's provision of NAS is interpreted opportunistically. Indeed, we find that decision context dramatically affects users' perceptions. Our findings have implications for regulators, who face the daunting challenge of mandating rules/laws to ensure auditor independence. The task becomes more difficult when users' assessment of auditor independence is malleable, varying across decision contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.256 · 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