Machine Learning Strategies and Realization Paths for Internal Audit Quality Improvement Enabled by New Quality Productivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper takes 2020-2022 Shanghai main board listed companies as the research object, and empirically examines the relationship between factors such as the establishment of internal audit department and the quality of internal audit empowered by new quality productivity, with the effectiveness of the quality of internal control as the explanatory variable, the degree of separation of two powers and so on as the explanatory variable, and the corporate governance structure as the control variable to carry out a via gradient descent Logistic regression analysis optimized by gradient descent algorithm.On this basis, to address the problem that internal audit is prone to bias or falsehood due to management's self-interest, the fsQCA method is combined to analyze the influencing factors of the choice of auditing policy (capital item or expense item) for general R&D expenditures.It is found that there is a significant positive relationship between companies with an internal audit department and a higher hierarchical level of affiliation and obtaining a standard audit opinion, and the regression relationship holds at the 0.05 level of significance, with a positive correlation with a regression coefficient of 3.745, and an OR value of 40.099.However, the effect of the company's twofold separation of powers governance structure on the quality of the audit fails the significance test.Firms with lower profitability levels, higher R&D intensity, higher debt levels, lower tax benefits for R&D additions and deductions and lower external audit quality are more likely to capitalize R&D expenditures.The study uses cutting-edge algorithms to accurately analyze new quality productivityenabling internal audit quality factors and innovate corporate compliance internal control paths.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".