MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398782849 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17060219

Sparked Intuition Power: An Audit Risk Activity

2024· article· en· W4398782849 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Barnes, Kathryn Enget, Mitchell Heberer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting Education and Careers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntuitionAuditBusinessPsychologyAccountingCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case explores the subjective nature of professional judgment related to audit risk through the lens of a fictitious company, Sparked Intuition Power (SIP). SIP has just been accepted as a new audit client by an international accounting firm. Students play the role of associates on the audit engagement team. As part of their work on the audit, the students identify potential risks present at SIP as part of the initial risk assessment process. Once these risks have been identified, the students decide how to assess the potential severity of each risk and determine the resulting effect on the overall auditor workload. Through interaction and discussion with their instructors, the students should be better able to navigate the decision-making process related to risk evaluation in an audit engagement.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicAccounting Education and CareersFrench-language works237,207