The impact of audit software on quality of audit in Kuwait: Insights from auditors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research tries to find a relationship between audit quality and audit software, impacted by the latter. In this study, multiple sentiments of audit professionals and finance executives on the relation of audit software and quality of audit in Kuwait are examined where, on the basis of agreed perspectives of professionals, it was found that audit software positively influences audit quality. This particular article tries to extend the previous works and emphasizes on the observation of audit professionals and their perspectives through a well-structured survey and semi-structured interviews. This study is to identify the distinctiveness of the audit industry in Kuwait comparing market size and available inadequate local auditors. The authors try to establish the relationship between audit quality and audit software considering the fact that acceptance of audits software will definitely give a more effective and robust audit process to cover market needs. The paper also considers the auditors’ training and experience as a moderating factor for the adoption and usage of audit software in auditing practices in Kuwait, resulting in useful insights on the effects of the adoption and use of auditing software in enhancing the quality of audit reports as well as suggesting resources for the use of technological developments in auditing practices. Thus, the study contributes to the extant literature on the dynamics for the adoption and usage of computerized systems in auditing practices to improve the quality of audit reports.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".