AI as an Intelligent Control: Evidence from Italy on Governance, Risk, and the Transformation from Manual to Intelligent Accounting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming accounting by automating cognitive tasks and redefining mechanisms of governance and risk control. This study examines how AI operates as an intelligent control system—one that substitutes manual accounting procedures while enhancing transparency, internal control, and fraud detection. Integrating the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with Organizational Information Processing Theory (OIPT), the research develops a behavioral–organizational framework linking perceived usefulness, ease of use, AI literacy, technology readiness, social influence, and facilitating conditions to AI adoption and perceived substitution benefits. A structured survey was administered to accounting students and practitioners in Northern Italy (n = 185) and analyzed through reliability tests and partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The results show that AI literacy, facilitating conditions, and social influence significantly drive adoption intention, while perceived substitution benefits fully mediate the relationship between adoption and governance outcomes. The findings demonstrate that AI adoption enhances governance and risk management effectiveness by functioning as an intelligent control mechanism. The study introduces the AI-to-Control (A2C) Blueprint to guide responsible integration of AI into accounting systems, reframing AI adoption as a structural evolution in corporate governance rather than a mere technological upgrade.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".