New Directions in Auditing Research: Conceptual Repair, Technological Disruption(s), Local Professional Governance and the Battle for Inclusivity
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our call for papers for this special issue we sought to advance our understanding of auditing and the context in which it operates from a broad perspective. We also emphasized the role in-depth qualitative methods could play in this regard. The five special issue papers do not disappoint in addressing these aims. They tackle several themes underlying different levels of transformation in audit practice and the environment in which it operates. The papers offer in-depth, rich insights into real-world issues which draw on ‘sense-making’ theories to significantly advance our understanding of these transformations. The transformations addressed encompass: the concept of audit; new audit technologies; professional associations; and inclusiveness and diversity in audit teams. The papers’ focus on audit-related transformations is timely given that, in several European contexts, audit practice and the accounting profession are yet again being scrutinized and subjected to suggestions for regulatory reform. This forms part of a cycle whereby auditing, auditors and the accounting profession continually confront calls for changes seen as essential to securing stability and the protection of the public. We hope that the papers’ findings, interpretations and future-oriented focus will stimulate significant debate and inform future research. We review the four transformation-oriented themes pervading the papers below and draw on them to suggest a future research agenda.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it