MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2780123483 · doi:10.22495/rgc7i4c2art2

The use of generalised audit software by internal audit functions in a developing country: A maturity level assessment

2017· article· en· W2780123483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D.P. van der Nest, Louis Smidt, Dave Lubbe

Bibliographic record

VenueRisk Governance and Control Financial Markets & Institutions · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaturity (psychological)Internal auditAuditAccountingBusinessCapability Maturity ModelBenchmark (surveying)Information technology auditSoftwareOrder (exchange)Perspective (graphical)Computer scienceFinanceGeographyJoint auditPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the existing practices of internal audit functions in the locally controlled South African banking industry regarding the use of Generalised Audit Software (GAS), against a benchmark developed from recognised data analytic maturity models, in order to assess the current maturity levels of the locally controlled South African banks in the use of this software for tests of controls. The literature review indicates that the use of GAS by internal audit functions is still at a relatively low level of maturity, despite the accelerating adoption of information technology and generation of big data within organisations. The empirical results of this article also confirm that the maturity of the use of GAS by the internal auditors employed by locally controlled South African banks is still lower than expected, given that the world, especially from a business perspective is now fully immersed in a technological-driven business environment. This study has since been extended to other industries in the following countries namely, Canada, Columbia, Portugal and Australia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisk Governance and Control Financial Markets & InstitutionsSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207