The Role of Technological Readiness in Enhancing the Quality of Audit Work: Evidence from an Emerging Market
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the impact of remote audit quality (RAQ) on the quality of audit work (QAW). Further, it explores the moderating effect of both client technological readiness (CLTR) and auditor technology readiness (ADTR) on the link between RAQ and QAW. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey distributed to all external auditors working in Egypt. The final sample consists of 280 auditors. The data were analyzed with smart partial least squares (Smart-PLS) software. The results showed that RAQ has a positive and significant impact on QAW. Moreover, the results revealed that CLTR and ADTR moderate the relationship between RAQ and QAW. CLTR was found to have a positive moderating role, as CLTR was found to strengthen the relationship between RAQ and QAW, while ADTR was found to have a negative moderating role, as ADTR was found to weaken the relationship between RAQ and QAW. The findings can provide a pivotal yardstick for guiding companies, auditing firms, auditing professional bodies, and regulators in the Egyptian context. Positioned as one of the early studies to concentrate on the moderating role of CLTR and ADTR in the relationship between RAQ and QAW, this research suggests insights within an emerging market context.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 it