Internal Audit Report Quality and Financial Statement Accuracy of Savings and Credit Cooperatives Societies in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this study is to examine the correlation between the caliber of internal audit reports and the precision of financial reporting within Kenyan savings and credit cooperative societies (SACCOs). The accuracy of financial reporting is of paramount importance as it influences investment decisions and market efficacy. In view of SACCOs' limited accounting expertise, this investigation aims to evaluate the impact of adept internal auditors on financial accuracy and the internal audit function's role in enhancing controls and preventing fraud. The study utilizes agency and stakeholder theories to probe into the SACCO management-shareholder relationship. By highlighting the significance of accurate financial statements and internal audit quality, the study employs theoretical frameworks to analyze the impact of audit reporting quality on financial accuracy. The ultimate objective of this study is to augment our comprehension of the role of internal audit quality in enhancing financial accuracy in Kenyan SACCOs. The theoretical basis of agency and stakeholder theories facilitates the analysis of intricate SACCO dynamics. In light of the criticality of SACCOs in Kenya's financial sector, the insights derived from this study support governance strengthening and the promotion of accurate financial reporting.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".