Can ChatGPT Be a Certified Accountant? Assessing the Responses of ChatGPT for the Professional Access Exam in Portugal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: From an exploratory perspective, this paper aims to assess how well ChatGPT scores in an accounting proficiency exam in Portugal, as well as its overall understanding of the issues, purpose and context underlying the questions under assessment. Design/methodology/approach: A quasi-experimental method is used in this study. The questions from an exam by the Portuguese Order of Chartered Accountants (OCC, in the Portuguese acronym) served as input queries, while the responses (outputs) from ChatGPT were compared with those from the OCC. Findings: The findings indicate that ChatGPT’s responses were able to deduce the primary issue underlying the matters assessed, although some responses were inaccurate or imprecise. Also, the tool did not have the same score in all matters, being less accurate in those requiring more professional judgment. The findings also show that the ChatGPT did not pass the exam, although it was close to doing so. Originality: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is little research on ChatGPT accuracy in accounting proficiency exams, this being the first such study in Portugal. Practical implications: The findings from this research can be useful to accounting professionals to understand how ChatGPT may be used for practitioners, stressing that it could assist them and improve efficiency, but cannot, at least for now, replace the human professional. It also highlights the potential use of ChatGPT as an additional resource in the classroom, encouraging students to engage in critical thinking and facilitating open discussion with the guidance of teachers. Consequently, it can also prove beneficial for academic purposes, aiding in the learning process.
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 | 0.011 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".