Investigation Factors Affecting the Effectiveness of Internal Auditors in the Company: Case Study Iran
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>There are relatively fewer number of studies focused on internal audit effectiveness, than the number of studies on the effectiveness of external audit. Our focus in this paper is mainly on determinants of internal audit effectiveness. For this purpose we developed and tested five hypotheses using an investigation approach. We gathered our data using a questionnaire, filled out by 355 internal audit manager and 272 other internal audit staff.</p><p>Our multivariate regression model estimates the relationships between the effectiveness of internal audit department and its five main determinants: competency of internal audit staff, size of internal audit department, communications between internal auditors and external auditors, management’s support for internal audit department, and independent (outsourced) internal audit.</p><p>Our results show that internal audit effectiveness has stronger relationships with management’s support for hiring and experienced educated staff, providing the internal audit department with sufficient resources, and the size of internal audit department.</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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it