MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121831939

Building a Better Audit Profession: Align Incentives and Reduce Regulation

2007· article· en· W3121831939 on OpenAlexaff
Karim Jamal

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSecurities Regulation and Market Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditIncentiveBusinessAuditor independenceAccountingPublic interestConflict of interestExternal auditorProduct (mathematics)Product marketFinanceJoint auditEconomicsLawInternal auditPolitical scienceMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article discusses the conflict of interest in auditing. The author relates that all publicly traded companies are required by law to hire a licensed auditor. It weakens the product market discipline that normally exists in the economy. In addition, the company gets to choose and pay its own auditor. It then creates the potential for a conflict of interest where the auditor might collude with management rather than serve the public interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0140.011
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicSecurities Regulation and Market PracticesFrench-language works237,207