MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400005515 · doi:10.1080/01559982.2024.2365102

Investigating ISA adaptation in a developing country context: the selective influence of Big Four affiliates

2024· article· en· W4400005515 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Forum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Adaptation (eye)AccountingBusinessDeveloping countryPolitical scienceEconomicsPsychologyGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines how the national process of adapting the International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) unfolds in developing countries, focusing on the case of Egypt. The study relies on data gathered from 33 semi-structured interviews with government officials and senior auditors alongside documentary evidence. Our findings show how legacy state institutions that were involved in the national standard-setting committee have largely fallen short of their aspirations to align local auditing standards with the expectations set out in the ISAs. The lack of a coherent approach to developing state policy objectives, resources, and public consultation, together with technical demands and translation difficulties, hampered the process. Such weaknesses provided an opportunity for the local Big Four affiliates to become deeply involved. The firms’ strategic manoeuvres were driven not only by a material desire to protect their market position/status but also by a commitment to a perceived national duty to support government attempts at national standard-setting. Importantly, our findings reveal the selectivity of such interventions and the differential impact of ISA adaptation on the diverse constituency of audit firms. Theoretically, we propose the institutional void perspective to conceptualise the intervention of private actors as well as to articulate the elements of a void in an audit regulatory process. While Big Four firms typically seek to position themselves in such processes, we argue that international reforms and policies should focus on fostering a more inclusive, accountable, and deliberative system that promotes the presence of diverse, independent and representative local audit actors.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.199 · 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