Auditor professional skepticism – a cross-cultural study in the global International Financial Reporting Standards environment: the case of Canada and Brazil
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
The global financial reporting environment is undergoing significant change, with a \nglobal trend toward more countries adopting the International Financial Reporting Standards for \npublic companies. Concerns exist as to potential barriers to harmonization, such as culture; \ntherefore, it is important to draw on institutional mechanisms, such as auditing, to encourage \ncompliance and harmonization. With this, there is a need to better understand the factors \naffecting the quality of such audits. Auditors’ professional skepticism is a key factor in ensuring \naudit quality. \nThis exploratory quantitative study explores an area that is not well researched: \nspecifically, the cross-cultural professional skepticism of auditors. Through a correlational \ndesign, the study provides insights as to whether auditors from different cultures make different \nskeptical judgments and decisions. This study also investigates whether prior research linking \nskeptical traits to increased professional skepticism in auditors is exportable from one culture to \nanother. The major finding of this study is that there is no significant difference in the \nprofessionally skeptical judgments and decisions of entry-level auditors from Canada and Brazil. \nCulture is not associated with the professional skepticism of these auditors. The study also \nhighlights that skepticism, as a trait does not correlate with professional skepticism of auditors \nacross all cultures, specifically in Canada and Brazil. \nThis study fills a major void in the literature concerning the study of cross-cultural \nprofessional skepticism and it extends prior research regarding the associations between \nskepticism as a trait and auditors’ professional skepticism by investigating auditors from two \nvery different cultures. This study provides insights that are relevant to practitioners such as regulators, auditors and auditing firms, as well as academics in auditing, accounting, psychology \nand cultural studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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