FACTOR-FACTOR THAT INFLUENCING INDEPENDENCE OF PUBLIC-SECTOR AUDITOR: A LITERATURE REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of public sector audit is a relatively large, complex, unexplored and under-recognized field. Therefore, researchers call for more studies on public sector audit, especially in the context of developing countries. This article gives review of academic study pertaining to public-sector auditors’ independence and factors affecting public-sector auditors’ independence. This literature review is implemented based on published papers in 20th century in prestigious journals related to public sector audit. Firstly, we review and explain definition of independence clearly. Secondly, we organize our review around three main threats to public-sector auditors’ independence, namely, (a) political manifestos, (b) auditor tenure, and (c) relationship with auditee. For each of the threats, this study discusses the effects of each threat on the public-sector auditors’ independence. Additionally, we conclude that proofs together with recent changes, provides for future study on public-sector auditor’s independence.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".