Technology Solutions to Detect Fraud
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discuses the use of technology in the area of fraud detection. Using a number of case studies Eckhardt will discuss various techniques and technology solutions which he has used in the past. It is intended for: management, who has an obligation to certify financial information and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting or who has to meet other compliance or operational requirements and; auditors and investigators charged with the audits of financial information, value for money audits or forensic investigations. Since the collapse of Enron on December 2, 2001 and other corporate failures around the world, wide-ranging changes have been made to the regulatory environment of business. Corporate governance has become a common focus for many boards and audit committees. In an attempt to restore confidence in the markets, securities regulators have promulgated various pieces of legislation, namely the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the US and Bill 198 and Multilateral Instrument 52-109 in Canada that require the certification of the design and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting by the CEO and CFO. Perhaps one of the more far-reaching revisions to the auditing standards concerns the auditor's responsibility to consider fraud. In all of these new standards and guidelines, technology solutions can play an ever-increasing role to the point where their use is now becoming a necessity, especially in the area of fraud detection.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".