MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156427493 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2021.4.002

Banking sector lack detection: Expectation gap between auditors and bankers

2021· article· en· W3156427493 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal auditAccountingBusinessAuditWork (physics)Private sectorFinancial servicesFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to identify the determinants of the expectation gap in fraud detection between internal auditors and bankers in Indonesia. The shift in the internal audit task in the banking sector can cause the hole in audit expectations to widen. This research uses qualitative methods with an interpretive paradigm which is rarely done by previous research. The results of interviews with internal audit work units and bank managers from 4 state-owned and private banks indicate a gap in audit expectations regarding the responsibilities between internal auditors and bankers, especially in carrying out the function of examining and detecting fraud. This study recommends the financial services authorities and bank leaders be able to improve education regarding anti-fraud policies to stakeholders, especially in terms of a clear division of tasks in fraud detection in the banking sector.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.217 · 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