MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900496741 · doi:10.5430/afr.v7n4p184

The Need for Audit Trinity Report to Reinforce Financial Reporting Integrity

2018· article· en· W2900496741 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad K. Shbeilat

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingAuditBusinessCorporate governanceAudit committeeExternal auditorInternal auditJoint auditChief audit executiveSafeguardingShareholderAuditor independenceRestructuringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investors’ reliability on financial statements decreases due to continuing corporate scandals. Many of these rogue listed companies have had dominant shareholders who have circumvented internal controls for personal gain or have hidden poor management using misleading reporting. This has led to calls for restructuring the annual financial report and to fill the gap of corporate governance constituents. This study aims to highlight the importance of combining the efforts of the audit trinity (those are: the audit committee, the external auditor and the internal auditor) in securing the financial reporting system and corporate governance. This literature-based study suggests coordinating and integrating the efforts of the audit trinity and the issue a joint report addressing all matters related to (1) safeguarding company’s assets and accounts (2) ensuring that financial statements and the annual report are fair, balanced and reliable, and (3) ensure the entity’s compliance with applicable laws, corporate governance code, and accounting and auditing standards. The proposed joint report is to be signed by the audit trinity and certified by the chairperson of the board. The development of this report went through two stages, the first one, reviewing related literature, internationally recognized frameworks and corporate governance best practices, and related international standards on auditing; the second stage was sending the draft of the proposed report to 20 expert referees requesting their comments on the structure and the appropriateness of the proposed report. The proposed report helps by clarifying the communication mechanism, responsibilities and powers of the audit trinity that enable them to adequately discharge their duty of maintaining corporate accountability and securing the financial reporting system. It also addressed the need to have informed and stringent control over the quality of financial ‎reporting and avoidance of conflicts of interest‎.

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)0.132
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.317
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1320.317
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0200.014
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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