Automatic Assessment of Materiality: A Knowledge-based Approach
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
<p>This paper explores how can a knowledge&ndash;based system (KBS) be used in auditing especially when the task requires using professional judgments. It concerned with modeling, implementing and evaluating a KBS called Materiality EXpert (MEX). MEX can assess the level of planning materiality and performance materiality as professionals act. Knowledge used to build MEX is acquired from literature, international standards on auditing, and experienced auditors using questionnaire as well as unstructured and structured interviews. MEX was evaluated by 34 auditors from different audit firms in Egypt including international audit firms. The evaluation results acquired from experienced auditors in Egypt indicated that MEX successfully executes the task of assessing the level of planning materiality and performance materiality. Moreover, MEX is efficient, effective, and acceptable from auditors for assessing the level of planning materiality and performance materiality.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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