MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175783482 · doi:10.5539/res.v7n12p170

Role and Liability of the Auditors in the Eu and in China: From Supervision Perspective

2015· article· en· W2175783482 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ruichao Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditLiabilityAccountingBusinessChinaPerspective (graphical)Service (business)Law and economicsActuarial scienceLawPolitical scienceEconomicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>False financial statements have been found in audit report recently. How to prevent fraud and protect investors and debtors becomes more important. The key issue is to define the role of auditors in audit service. It shall be analyzed from multiple perspectives. The liability of auditors is another critical issue, which is consecutive part to the first issue. The second issue would be the relief procedure for investors. If this procedure functions well, it could strengthen the effectiveness of the audit regime. This thesis would discuss these issues from comparative perspectives: the EU and China. Since the legal background and economic development are different, the effect of same regime may differ a lot. This is what this thesis tries to reveal.</p>

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207