Les nouvelles normes relatives à l’indépendance des vérificateurs : l’implantation d’un cadre conceptuel fondé sur l’autoréglementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the American financial scandals, special attention has been given to the auditor’s role in corporate governance. After auditors were identified as key players in the collapse of several large corporations, proposals to ensure proper supervision of auditors were put forward. In 2003, responding to measures taken in the United States, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants approved new standards to ensure the independence of auditors. In September 2004, the Quebec chartered accountants’code of ethics was amended to incorporate similar standards. The purpose of this article is to examine the context in which the recent modernization of independence standards for auditors has been carried out. This analysis of the Canadian conceptual framework defines its limits and underlines the importance of co-operation between auditors, accounting firms and the accounting profession to implement the new rules and ensure their success.
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 | 0.041 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".