Re-Examining Auditability through Auditors’ Responses to COVID-19: Roles and Limitations of Improvisation on the Production of Auditing Knowledge
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
SUMMARY Drawing on Power’s theorization of the logic of auditability as a multidimensional system (Power 1996), we examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on auditors’ year-end work from January to April 2020. Based on 24 semistructured interviews with auditing and accounting professionals located in China, we find that all four dimensions of the logic of auditability were destabilized at once. To restore the conditions of auditability during the pandemic, auditors improvised a deviant system of audit knowledge by rearranging the timeline of audit procedures, altering the substance of audit processes, and designing alternative control mechanisms. As the audit profession continues to evolve and more institutional decomposition (or reconfiguration) of the logic of auditability is expected to occur, this study contributes to our understanding of how auditors improvise in the backstage and produce comfort when they have to operate outside the protective umbrella of legitimate processes during sudden change of circumstances.
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 | 0.017 | 0.532 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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