The perceptions of loan officers and auditors of factors affecting auditor independence: Evidence from Palestine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigates the perceptions of external auditors and loan officers regarding external auditor's independence in Palestine. Data were gathered using a questionnaire developed by the author and include 5 main issues related to the perception of external auditor’s independence. The sampling population identified for this study consists of external auditors working in domestic and international audit firms and financial statement users mainly loan officers in Palestine. The sample included 79 auditors and 76 loan officers. The findings revealed that there are significant differences in the perceptions of external auditors and loan officers in relation to provision of non-audit services, auditor’s economic dependence on a single audit client, and long relationship between an auditor and a client. The results revealed mixed results about the effect of presence of active audit committee on independence of the external auditors. Furthermore, acceptance of significant gifts from the client was considered an important factor that may influence auditor independence by loan officers and external auditor and thus significant differences between the two respondent groups were found in relation to acceptance of significant gifts from the client. These findings can be useful to policy makers and professional auditing bodies in Palestine on setting new regulations or strengthening existing ones to enforce auditor’s independence in Palestine.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".