Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few decades various financial scandals have occurred involving large organisations such as Enron and World-Com in the early 2000s, until those scandals academia had not realised its little knowledge about the internal audit function (IAF). After the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) (2002) in the United States and Bill 198 (2002) in Canada, the IAF quickly gained more visibility and many studies began to explore this new research avenue. Past papers indicate that a strong, independent and competent internal audit could have avoided some scandals by detecting the fraud that was going on in these fraudulent companies. Having this in mind, this research has tried to identify the main challenges faced by an internal audit department and evaluate the main values generated by the IAF. The main objective of this research was to explore the management perception of the internal audit department, to do that a case study with professionals in Brazil from different industries was conducted, the participants of this study were divided between internal auditors and members of management. The study findings suggest that the management perception in relation to the IAF has been changing positively over the years. In most companies analysed, the professionals point out a change in the management consideration of the internal audit suggestions and recommendation, and in some cases the internal audit department is consulted by manager before they make strategic decision.
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 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".