MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945174016 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2019.5.013

Factors influencing the information quality of local government financial statement and financial accountability

2019· article· en· W2945174016 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nur Fitri Dewi, S. M. Ferdous Azam, Siti Khalidah Mohd Yusof

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityBusinessQuality (philosophy)Financial statementAccountingGovernment (linguistics)FinanceLocal governmentPolitical sciencePublic administrationAudit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to study the effect of internal control system and human resource competence on information quality of local government financial statement and financial accountability. The method of collecting data is questionnaire which is distributed among 161 out of 303 population of employees of the Agency (Dinas) in the Government of South Sumatra Province, Indonesia. The collected data is processed by using SPSS 20.00 with t-test and Path Analysis. The result shows that internal control system and human resource competence positively influenced on the information quality of local government financial statement. Internal control system and human resource competence also influence positively on financial accountability both directly and indirectly mediated by the information quality of local government financial statement. Moreover, the information quality of local government financial statement directly and positively influence the financial accountability. The re-sults of this study can be beneficial for the government as input and material considerations in determining policies specifically related to improve the quality of information on government financial statements and financial accountability.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations137
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicFinancial Literacy and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207