The impact of technological innovations on audit transparency, objectivity, and assurance in the digital era
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 explores the impact of technological innovations on audit transparency, objectivity, and assurance. The study employs a systematic literature review methodology, analyzing a wide range of scholarly articles, research papers, and reports to synthesize the findings. The methodology involved identifying keywords, conducting comprehensive searches in academic databases, and evaluating the selected literature. The study identifies key themes on how technological innovations impact audit practices through analysis of the literature. The impacts of technology include enhanced audit transparency through improved documentation capabilities, real-time reporting, and increased stakeholder engagement. Technological advancements bolster audit objectivity by automating repetitive tasks, facilitating advanced data analysis, and promoting standardized audit procedures. However, the analysis highlighted challenges associated with the use of technology in audits including complex technology implementation and the potential for biases. This research study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by consolidating relevant research and insights on the subject matter.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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