MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980492893 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v11n1p43

Antecedent Variables and Consequences of Religiosity on Fraud

2019· article· en· W2980492893 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhamad Taqi, Sabaruddinsah, Tubagus Ismail, Meutia Meutia

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiosityAntecedent (behavioral psychology)Nonprobability samplingStructural equation modelingCompensation (psychology)PsychologyControl (management)Social psychologyAccountingBusinessSociologyStatisticsEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze the antecedent variables of religiosity (suitability of compensation, money ethics and internal control system) and the consequences on accounting fraud among regional officials. The study method used here was descriptive quantitative method with a correlation approach, the sampling used purposive sampling technique. Data collection in this study was conducted by distributing questionnaires to the officials of the Regional Work Units (SKPD) of Serang City and Regency. Data analysis used Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with SmartPLS program. The results of the study showed that the suitability of compensation had a negative effect, money ethics had a positive effect, the internal control system had a negative effect and religiosity had a negative effect on accounting fraud among the regional officials. Then the suitability of compensation, money ethics and internal control systems were proved to be the antecedent variables of religiosity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicFinancial Literacy and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207