Accounting Students’ Perspectives on Fraud and Forensic Topics in the Accounting Curriculum: A Comparison with Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forensic accounting is a growing field, especially given the increasing threat of fraud in businesses today. This study examines accounting students’ perspectives on fraud and forensic topics that they believe should be included in the accounting curriculum. This study also compares students’ perspectives with those of professionals. A survey of sophomores and seniors at a liberal arts undergraduate college in the Northeast United States was conducted. It asked students about the importance of certain qualities they perceive a forensic accountant should possess and topics they should be familiar with. In addition, students’ responses were compared with the results of Daniels et al.’s (2013) study regarding professionals’ responses. The results showed that sophomores and seniors significantly differed in their perceptions of internal control and fraud risk factors. In addition, students and professionals had significantly different perceptions of what the most critical forensic accounting topics should be included in the accounting curriculum. These differences are presented and discussed in the paper.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".