MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4384071597 · doi:10.5539/ass.v19n4p45

Problems Facing External Auditors in Kuwait

2023· article· en· W4384071597 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nabi Al-Duwaila, Abdullah AL‐Mutairi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditAccountingBusinessExternal auditorJoint auditCorporate governanceInternal auditQuality auditWalk-through testAuditor independenceOrder (exchange)Finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Audit quality maintains positive association with the level of confidence of different stakeholders who are concerned about the financial and operational performance of audited financial statements. Hence, the role of the external auditor is unavoidable to restore good corporate governance. The purpose of the study is to identify the problems, which face the external auditors in Kuwait. In order to achieve this objective, 120 questionnaires have been distributed to random external auditors in Kuwait. A total of 100 questionnaires were returned; resulting in 83% usable response rate. The study showed that the external auditors in Kuwait faced many problems regarding the laws and legislations. It also demonstrated that the absence of independent and specialized party for legislations of auditing, insufficient role of professional associations in educating auditors, the weak of internal control over audited companies and the low fees of auditing as the most important problems facing external auditors in Kuwait. The analysis revealed that the lack of confidence between the audit offices and firms, clients relax to some of the audit offices and firm slowdown in paying audit fees seem to be the least significant obstacles facing external auditors. The study concluded that applying appropriate criteria for calculating the audit fees and educating auditors on the importance of adhering to professional ethics are important variables to overcome the auditors’ problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies→French-language works237,207→