Why Audit Committees Oppose Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation: Interview Evidence from Canada
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
SUMMARY This article summarizes our recent study (Fontaine, Khemakhem, and Herda 2016), which investigates audit committee (AC) members' perspectives on mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR), mandatory audit partner rotation, ways in which AC members monitor auditor independence, and the costs associated with changing audit firms. We conduct in-person interviews with AC members in Canada to explore our research questions. Our findings reveal that AC members view MAFR as an unnecessary threat to their shareholder-granted authority to make audit firm appointment decisions, and believe their professional judgment and observations are the most effective means of ensuring auditor independence. We explain our findings using self-determination theory. Deep insight into the perspectives of AC members, attained by face-to-face interviews and guaranteed anonymity, should interest audit firms and regulators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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