Big Data analytics and financial reporting quality: qualitative evidence from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Big Data analytics (BDA) and its implications for the accounting profession continue to be a key issue that requires more research and evaluation. As a result, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of BDA on financial reporting quality, as well as to assess the accounting challenges associated with Big Data. It provides qualitative evidence from Canada. Design/methodology/approach This study used a qualitative approach to ascertain the thoughts and perceptions of auditors, financial analysts and accountants at Canadian audit and accounting firms in BDA and its impact on financial reporting quality, using semi-structured interviews. To obtain their consent to participate in the interview, 127 auditors, financial analysts and accountants from Canadian audit and accounting firms were initially approached. The final number of respondents was 41, representing a response rate of 32%. Findings The authors’ findings underscored the relevance of Big Data and BDA in affecting financial report quality and revealed that BDA had a significant effect on improving financial reporting quality. Big Data improves accounting reporting and expert judgment by providing professional. In summary, participants agreed that when analytical methods in Big Data are implemented effectively, businesses may possibly achieve a variety of benefits, including customized goods, simplified processes, improved risk assessment process and, finally, increased risk management. Practical implications The authors’ findings indicate that BDA may help predict investment returns and risks, estimate future investment opportunities, forecast revenues, detect fraud and susceptibility early and identify economic growth opportunities. As a result, auditors, financial analysts, accountants, investors and other strategic decision-makers should be aware of these findings to make informed choices. Originality/value Big Data has become the norm in recent years; accountants and other decision-makers have struggled to analyze massive amounts of data. This limits their capacity to profit from such data even more. Therefore, this study is motivated by the lack of research on Big Data’s influence on financial report quality.
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 | 0.036 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".