Investigating the Impact of Auditor-Provided Systems Reliability Assurance on Potential Service Recipients (Retracted)
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to assess the extent to which auditor-provided systems reliability assurance affects potential service recipients' (1) likelihood of recommending that their company enter into a contractual agreement with the service provider, and (2) comfort level with the reliability of the service provider's information systems. We conducted a full-factorial between-subjects experiment where the following four auditor assurances were either absent or present: availability, security, integrity, and maintainability. A total of 481 middle- and upper-level managers from a broad spectrum of functional areas participated in the study. Research findings indicate significant main effects with respect to all four assurances, as well as firm size, for the “likelihood” variable. Significant main effects were also obtained for the “comfort” variable with respect to availability, security, and maintainability (marginal significance), but integrity and firm size were nonsignificant. The amount of variance explained by the “availability” and “security” assurances (combined) was remarkably large (56 percent for “likelihood” and 43 percent for “comfort”) relative to the combined variance explained by the other two assurances (1 percent for “likelihood” and 1 percent for “comfort”). We also found evidence that respondents overweighed assurance reports on individual principles, as compared to a four-principle reliability report. Additionally, we found no significant difference in dependent variable responses when all four assurances were provided and the auditor's report focused on either the (1) effectiveness of controls or (2) reliability of the system. Research evidence offers key strategic guidance to the AICPA, CICA, and CPA/CA firms engaged in systems reliability assurance services.
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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".