THE EFFECT OF STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCTION FOR MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANTS ON FINANCIAL REPORTING QUALITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the impact of the standards and the ethics of professional conduct of the managerial accountant on the quality of the financial reports. These standards embodied in competence, confidentiality, integrity, and credibility. To achieve the objective of the study a questionnaire was built and distributed to the sample of the study where the study population comprised Extractive and Mining industries enlisted in Amman Stock Exchange (ASE). In order to test the hypothesis, Stepwise Multiple Regression was used. The results have demonstrated that each of competence, confidentiality, and credibility has an impact on the financial reporting quality whereas there is no significant impact of the standard of integrity in the financial reporting quality. In light of the results of the study, the researchers recommend the need to emphasize the role of the standards of ethical conduct of the managerial accountant in achieving the quality of accounting information included in the internal financial reports. As well as the compatibility between the freedom of the managerial accountant to adhere to binding accounting standards and his commitment to the standards of ethical conduct while establishing an organizational mechanism to guide and monitor the compliance with these standards.
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 | 0.041 | 0.270 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".