MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392121664 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17030094

Bibliometric Framing of Research Trends Regarding Public Sector Auditing to Fight Corruption and Prevent Fraud

2024· article· en· W4392121664 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diana-Sabina Branet, Camelia-Daniela Hațegan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanguage changeAuditPublic sectorFraming (construction)AccountingAnalyticsBusinessPublic institutionPublic relationsPolitical scienceLawEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combating corruption is an important objective of the United Nations Sustainable Development Group, with the aim of helping public institutions to act in the interest of citizens. To ensure this objective is met, the spending of public money is controlled by the supreme audit institutions of each country. The objective of this paper is to identify trends in and approaches to the field of auditing in the public sector to combat corruption and prevent fraud. To achieve the proposed objective, a bibliometric analysis of papers published in the journals indexed in Web of Science Clarivate Analytics for the period 2003–2022 was carried out; selection criteria was based on instances of the keywords “public audit fraud”, “supreme institution”, and “fraud” appearing in a sample of 528 articles. The results showed that there was a research interest in this field, with the trend being more pronounced since 2017. The main topics addressed were those related to the performance audit and the fight against corruption, and the most relevant studies were conducted on samples from Nordic European countries. Thus, it is confirmed that the external audit in public sector is an important factor in combating the phenomenon of corruption in the public sector, both by detecting fraud and by offering recommendations aimed at making the activity of this sector more efficient.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0170.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCorruption and Economic DevelopmentCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207