The Extent to Which Contracting Companies in Kuwait Comply with International Accounting Standards from the Point of View of the Internal Auditors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to demonstrate the degree to which contracting companies in Kuwait comply with the requirements of IAS 11 in terms of applying accounting disclosure requirements and applying the requirements for recognition of revenues and expenses of construction contracts. The study group consists of Kuwaiti contracting companies in the first category. The sample of the study consisted of accountants and internal auditors in contracting companies. The contracting companies in the State of Kuwait apply the requirements of accounting disclosure for construction contracts in accordance with the requirements of International Standard No. 11, and the contracting companies in the State of Kuwait apply the requirements for recognition of the revenues and expenses of construction contracts in accordance with the requirements of International Standard No. 11. The most recommendations: The necessity of contracting companies in the State of Kuwait to disclose the methods used to determine the level of completion of construction contracts under implementation, which helps in the application of full disclosure of construction contracts in addition to the possibility of integration of information elements of the financial statements. And the contracting companies to disclose the total amounts due to customers for the work of construction contracts as an asset within assets.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".