MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173984577 · doi:10.19030/jabr.v8i4.6120

Internal Auditor Involvement In Internal Control System Design? Is Objectivity Impaired?

2011· article· en· W2173984577 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan K. Church, Arnold Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssertionObjectivity (philosophy)Internal auditAuditInternal controlAccountingPsychologyBusinessComputer scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research in behavioral decision making suggests that internal auditors who are involved in the design of a particular internal control system may be reluctant to find fault with the system, and in turn, their objectivity may be impaired. The purpose of our study was to test this assertion. We found, contrary to the assertion, that internal auditors who participated in the design of a particular system were able to maintain their objectivity.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.139
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.139
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR)Same topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207