The Mediating Effect of External Audit Quality on the Relationship Between Corporate Governance and Creative Accounting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to examine the impact of corporate governance in limiting creative accounting practices mediating by the quality of external audits in Jordanian industrial public shareholding companies. The analysis in this research was to follow some of the analysis techniques namely; validity, reliability, and multiple regression were used in order to achieve the objectives of the study, The study population consisted of all Jordanian industrial public shareholding companies registered in the Amman Stock Exchange for the year 2019, and due to the large size of the study population, the researchers applied the s sample random technique representing the population where valid questionnaires reached statistical analysis (120) a questionnaire that included; financial managers and heads of accounting and audit departments. The study concluded that there is a statistically significant effect of the quality of external auditing and the principles of institutional governance in limiting creative accounting practices in Jordanian industrial companies, and in light of these results, the study recommended that industrial companies exploit the positive complementary relationship between the quality of external auditing and the principles of institutional governance to reach the common goal to reduce creative accounting practices.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".