MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403514562 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2024.10.001

Audit tasks Digitalization and quality of audit services in Nigeria

2024· article· en· W4403514562 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sunday Otuya

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicImpact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditBusinessQuality auditQuality (philosophy)Accounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today's dynamic business landscape, the audit profession encounters numerous obstacles, particularly in adapting to the necessity of computer-assisted audits due to the immense volume of data requiring scrutiny. Despite the emergence of different digital auditing tools, there is a gap in research regarding the level of adoption, and its effects on the quality of audit services especially in the context of developing countries. This study seeks to investigate the impact of digitalization of audit tasks on the quality of audit services of accounting firms in Nigeria. The study, which has its foundation on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) integrated with the Technology, Organization, and Environment (TOE) framework, adopted the survey research design. The population of study was made up practitioners of accounting firms in Abuja and Lagos, Nigeria. A self-designed questionnaire was used as a tool for data collection for the study. Findings of the study indicate that automation of audit tasks enhances the quality of audit services suggesting that adopting IT infrastructures leads to more reliable audit procedures, improved efficiency and accuracy, as well as mitigating audit risks. Results also revealed that Big Four auditors are significantly ahead in the adoption of digital technologies compared to the non-Big Four auditors, confirming the dominance of larger accounting firms in application of emerging technologies in performing audit tasks.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicImpact of AI and Big Data on Business and SocietyFrench-language works237,207