Audit Senior Modeling Fallibility: The Effects of Reduced Error Strain and Enhanced Error-Related Self-Efficacy on Audit Juniors' Responses to Self-Discovered Errors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper examines the relationship between audit seniors discussing their own experiences with committing and correcting errors (modeling fallibility), and audit juniors' thinking about errors and error communication (openly discussing their own self-discovered errors). The paper investigates the direct relationship between senior modeling fallibility and juniors' responses, and whether the relationship is mediated through error strain and error-related self-efficacy. Survey data from 266 audit juniors from two Big 4 Canadian accounting firms showed a direct positive association between audit senior modeling fallibility and audit juniors' thinking about errors, and error communication. This relationship is positively mediated through error-related self-efficacy. We also found that the relationship is mediated by error strain. However, although audit senior modeling fallibility was associated with reduced error strain, error strain was positively related to both thinking about errors and error communication, contrary to our hypothesis. The paper discusses the theoretical and practical implications of these results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it