MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803308240 · doi:10.5430/afr.v7n3p54

The Determinants of Audit Expectation Gap: An Empirical Study from Kingdom of Bahrain

2018· article· en· W2803308240 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sayed Ali Ahmed Alawi, Rami Mohammad Abu Wadi, Gagan Kukreja

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditAccountingBusinessSample (material)Joint auditAuditor's reportExternal auditorDescriptive statisticsInternal auditActuarial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research aims at identifying the determinants of audit expectation gap between the auditors and the users of financial statements in the Kingdom of Bahrain. This issue is noticed in many frauds or errors or illegal matters by the general public after every scam whether Enron and WorldCom from United States or Satyam and Punjab National Bank from India or Tesco and BHS from United Kingdom or Mobily from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As per International Standards on Auditing (ISAs), auditors are not responsible to detect each and every fraud or error or illegal act as it is the responsibility of management. However, auditors are expected to assess the possibility of an error or fraud to occur and assess risks of material misstatement due to error or fraud and they are supposed to express their independent and objective opinion on financial statements whether financial statements are prepared in accordance to suitable criteria (International Financial Reporting Standards in the case of Bahrain).This quantitative research and its descriptive design aims empirically to analyze determinants that may impact the audit expectation gap in the Kingdom of Bahrain. The study used a detailed questionnaire as a measuring instrument across the sample group to measure 4 determinants that are expected to have a significant impact on the level of the audit expectation gap. Those determinants are the efforts of auditors, the skills of auditors, the knowledge of the public about the audit profession and the users’ needs from auditors. The research inferred that identified factors found to have a significant impact on the level of audit expectation gap. It is recommended that audit firms should provide training to the audit staff that how to utilize the required efforts in conducting an audit engagement and go extra miles to fill the gap. Furthermore, the auditors should keep themselves updated about the latest frauds and the best audit 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207