The effect of artificial intelligence technologies on audit evidence
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
Technologies of Artificial Intelligence (AI) are critical for future of the auditing profession. These technologies are actually vital tools that provide the auditing professionals with the means necessary for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of their jobs. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of artificial intelligence technologies on audit evidence, from the point of view of certified auditors in information technology (IT) companies in Jordan. Descriptive research design was adopted in the study among 314 auditors. Structured questionnaire was used to obtain the information needed for the study. The findings of the study showed that expert system had a significant effect on the audit evidence. Neural network technology did not provide any significant effect on the audit evidence. The study recommended increased interest in artificial intelligence technologies by audit offices operating in Jordan because of its scientific importance in improving the collection of audit evidence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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