Assessing the Transformative Impact of AI Adoption on Efficiency, Fraud Detection, and Skill Dynamics in Accounting Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the significance of AI adoption in the accounting field, this study intends to investigate its impact on the accounting profession; specifically on the efficiency and quality of financial data, financial fraud detection and tax filings, and work activities and skill requirements of accountants. A quantitative method was employed, and a questionnaire was sent to a purposive sample of 454 accountants. The results confirm that AI adoption in accounting significantly enhances the efficiency and quality of financial data, positively influences financial fraud detection and tax filings, and alters work activities and skill requirements within the accounting profession. These results highlight the transformative role of AI in modern accounting practices. Notably, the study incorporates demographic variables such as age and experience, uncovering their mediating influence on perceptions of AI’s impact. Conducted in Lebanon, a developing country facing economic and political instability, the research provides valuable contextual insights into AI adoption under challenging conditions. This study contributes to the literature by empirically demonstrating AI’s transformative role in accounting, offering both theoretical advancements and actionable recommendations for professionals aiming to harness AI for improved performance and innovation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".