Bibliographic record
Abstract
So far, auditor’s independence has been the central theme of auditing- related discussions. Since the birth of auditing pmfessbn, these kinds of discussions has already existed. This paper attempts to recollect part of those discussions by reviewing die relevant literatures. This recollection is not the first attempt that has ever been done, but this paper is particularly unique in these respects, (1) it not only reviews the researches on auditor's independence, but also reviews the discussions about what is the meaning of “auditor’s independence’by different auditing-experts, (2) it includes die conceptual frameworks of the perceptions on auditor’s independence, and (3) it attempts to summarize the issues of “where we are now" and “where we are heading for” on auditor’s independence. This literatures-review reveals that the discussion on both research-results and die meaning of auditor’s independence has been and will be always inconclusive. At die end of this paper, the conceptual framework of perception on auditor's independence is presented in the hope that it will guide the future discussions about the same topic.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".