A Blueprint for Minimizing Audit Anticipation Gap in a Developing Country: Stakeholders Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This paper provides a blueprint for minimizing Audit Anticipation Gap (AAG) in a developing country. The focus was on exploring the occurrence, causes, and consequent effects of the Audit Anticipation Gap in Sudan, by identifying the possible factors that contribute to that gap. This was achieved by surveying the opinions of practicing external auditors, key users of financial statements, and accounting educators.Research Design/Methodology/Approach: A qualitative research approach was adopted through a cross-sectional survey, using in-depth face-to-face structured personal interviews. Furthermore, purposive/judgmental sampling was utilized to select interviewees. Twenty-nine interviews were carried out, and their responses were analyzed using thematic content analysis.Major Findings: The findings did indicate that an Audit Anticipation Gap exists in Sudan due to a weak and undeveloped accounting and auditing profession in the country, ambiguity concerning auditor’s independence, lack of external auditor rotation in the majority of the financial sectors, rendering both audit and non-audit services, absence of rules and regulations that govern external audit practices. Furthermore, major contributing factors included misunderstanding the objectives of auditing, the audit process, and the auditor’s roles and responsibilities by key users of financial statements.Practical Implications: The study provided a wide range of findings that have significant implications for policy making geared toward minimizing the Audit Anticipation Gap in the country, so that accounting will play its proper role in its sustainable economic development.Originality/Value: This study contributes to the existing literature by providing detailed and comprehensive findings from a region that has gained little focus on the subject matter. Specifically, it has shed light on the weaknesses of the accounting and auditing profession in Sudan, with a particular emphasis on the Audit Anticipation Gap. Thus, by surveying the viewpoints of the key stakeholders, the study provided prescriptions for turning around the accounting profession in the country to a potential world-class status.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".