Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study hypothesizes that, in client firms, audit teams or auditors go through life cycle phases—entry, adjustment, and recursion—that give rise to distinct patterns of independence across time. The life cycle paradigm depicts the auditors as facing pressures during entry to adhere strongly to their professional mandate, including the strict exercise of independence. The result is tense auditor–client relations and an increased likelihood of auditor turnover during the entry phase. Auditors that gain entry will “loosen up” and adjust their stance on independence due to the reduced entry pressures. As a result, the adjustment phase will witness a decline in auditor–client disagreements and a lower likelihood of auditor turnover. Over protracted periods, the audit process becomes tightly structured and recursive; the repetitive nature of the processes leads to audit fatigue, less attention to the independence mandate, and greater reliance on clients. The phenomenon portends an even further decline in auditor–client tension and a diminished likelihood of auditor turnover. These predictions are tested using auditor turnovers following auditor–client disputes as surrogates for auditor independence. The results confirm the life cycle phenomena and show that the level of auditor independence peaks during the early years of the auditors’ tenure and declines afterwards.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".