An experimental examination of judgments of Chinese professional auditors in evaluating internal control systems
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
Researchers have tended to assume that Anglo-American theories and practices are equally applicable to other countries with their unique contextual environments. The aim of this research is to show that the theoretical model and empirical research findings in Anglo-American countries, with respect to evaluation of internal control systems, are not applicable to China. Specifically, there are two approaches to evaluate internal control systems: one is a risk-based audit approach, and the other is a control-based audit approach. Morrill, Morrill, and Kopp (2012) show that Canadian accountants who relied on a risk-first approach identified significantly more internal control deficiencies than accountants who relied on a control-first approach. Contrary to the research findings in Canada, this study provides experimental evidence that Chinese auditors who relied on a control-first approach identified significantly more internal control deficiencies than auditors who relied on a risk-first approach. The findings have implications for global convergence of auditing practices.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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