Green IT Perceptions and Activities of Internal Auditors in Australia, Canada, and the United States
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 Green IT and sustainability reporting receive considerable attention. Internal auditors are considered control experts and provide assurance that controls have been designed and are functioning properly. However, literature indicates discrepant findings in terms of internal auditors' role in sustainability activities. Based on a theoretical link between environmental regulations and internal auditors' role in sustainability activities, we examine whether internal auditors' roles in green IT differ across Australia, Canada, and the U.S. We find that internal auditors' current green IT perceptions and involvements in the three countries are essentially interchangeable, even though their regulations are significantly different. We find that their perceived roles differ across most green IT activities across industries, but their current involvement does not. Future research needs to identify whether there are cultural reasons or deeper, profound systemic reasons why internal auditors are not more proactively involved in the highly visible, rapidly growing, value-added areas of sustainability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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