Quality of the Explanatory Notes of Brazilian Federal Professional Councils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to verify whether the audit and organizational factors of the Brazilian Federal Professional Supervisory Councils (CFFPs) influenced the quality of their notes to the financial statements for the year 2021. Method: A bibliographical and documentary study was carried out, with a quantitative, predominantly descriptive approach. Results: The results indicate that auditing, whether internal or external to the entity, improves the quality of the notes to the financial statements (NEs); size, whose proxy is the number of members, and time since incorporation, however, did not significantly affect it. Although this study did not focus on the organizational governance and asset size of CFFPs, the evidence shows that there is a positive and significant correlation between these factors and the quality of the NEs. Contributions: this research can contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between auditing and organizational factors in the quality of accounting information, providing inputs and empirical considerations for the development of more effective public policies aimed at improving the transparency and accountability of these entities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".