The Role of the Audit Firm Governance in Enhancing Audit Market Stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across the world there have been important regulation related to the audit matters. Significant efforts have been made in recent years to improve the audit firm trustfully with a focus on the significance of corporate governance for the market perception of the audit firm quality. The IAASB published in 2020 the exposure draft on “Fraud and going concern in an audit of financial statements” and the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) updated in 2016 the Audit Firm Governance Code. Good corporate governance and the related effects on market reputation of audit firm could reduce the market concentration of the BIG4. This study looks at whether or not, and if so, in the UK market the corporate governance of the audit firms is correlated with the market share of audit firms in order to support the efforts of standard setters to improve the corporate governance of audit firms and to enrich the academic literature on this topic. Enhancing corporate governance practice in non BIG4 audit firm could affect the perception of audit quality of the smaller accounting firms and improve their market share.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".