Ethical implications of artificial intelligence in accounting: A framework for responsible ai adoption in multinational corporations in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accelerated progress of Artificial Intelligence (AI) within the accounting field has resulted in a heightened use of this technology in international enterprises, therefore generating noteworthy ethical concerns. This research investigates the ethical implications that arise from the use of AI in accounting practices, focusing on international corporations operating in Jordan. The objective of this research is to provide a comprehensive framework for the ethical and responsible integration of AI within the accounting domain. The research used a survey methods approach while 379 respondents were selected using cluster and proportional sampling. The qualitative component of the research investigates the viewpoints and concerns of persons pertaining to the use of AI. The study results provide significant contributions to the development of a context-specific paradigm for AI ethics that prioritizes concepts such as transparency, fairness, and accountability. The findings of this study have substantial value for multinational corporations engaged in commercial operations in Jordan and similar regions. The results provide organizations with the necessary tools to proficiently address the ethical dilemmas that emerge as a result of using artificial intelligence in accounting procedures.
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 | 0.060 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| 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".