RESTATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL REPORTS DETERMINED BY THE CVM: THE ROLE OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normal 0 21 false false false /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabela normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} With the purpose of finding elements which allow modeling average characteristics that explain the pattern of the events of financial reports restatements determined by the CVM, as well as, more specifically, to evaluate the independent auditors' role in such situation, a descriptive research was performed using technical procedures of documental nature, examining the 28 cases occurred between 2001 and 2009. The tests results showed: concentration of the cases in the second half of the period investigated; predominance of problems in the Quarterly Information (ITR), especially in the last years of the study; relatively uniform distribution of Financial Statements (DFP) restatement cases in the period; a larger number of cases related to financial statements audited by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; reasons alleged by the CVM for restatements are mainly in relation to inappropriate recognition and/or measurement of assets and liabilities and the deficiency or lack of disclosure in explanatory notes; the problems anticipation degree by independent auditors might be considered as relatively small - auditors issued qualified opinion in only about one quarter of the ITRs and half of DFPs. Regarding the reasons that led to restatements, just under half of the issues addressed by the CVM received qualified opinion by independent auditors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".