The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Improving the Efficiency and Accuracy of Local Government Financial Reporting: A Systematic Literature Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital transformation has driven the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in local government financial reporting to improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability. This study employs a systematic literature review (SLR) approach to analyze 20 relevant articles, identifying common characteristics of publications, research focus, methods, AI technologies used, key findings, research gaps, and future research directions. The analysis results show the dominance of machine learning and expert systems in detecting fraud, predicting financial performance, and improving reporting accuracy. However, limitations in infrastructure, regulations, and system integration across government agencies remain significant challenges to implementing AI in the public sector. This study proposes the need for the development of practical implementation models, collaboration between academics, government, and technology developers, as well as the formulation of policies that support ethical and responsible AI governance. These findings make a significant contribution to shaping the strategic direction of AI utilization to strengthen local government financial reporting systems sustainably.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it