MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283831931 · doi:10.1108/jfra-12-2021-0489

Big Data analytics and financial reporting quality: qualitative evidence from Canada

2022· article· en· W4283831931 on OpenAlexaffabout
Isam Saleh, Yahya Marei, Maha Ayoush, Malik Abu Afifa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of financial reporting & accounting · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingAuditBusinessBig dataQuality auditRevenueData qualityFinanceFinancial accountingAccounting managementQuality (philosophy)Accounting information systemMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.536
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.536
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of financial reporting & accountingSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207