MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2118189743 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v8n2p220

Effect of Accounting Goals and Methods of Measurement Accounting Firms after Privatization of Jordan on the Financial Statements

2015· article· en· W2118189743 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Atallah Ahmad Al Hosban

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingAccounting information systemAccounting managementFinancial accountingBusinessAccounting standardFinancial ratioDivestmentFinanceProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)Management accountingEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aimed to highlight the objectives of the privatization process of accounting and the extent of the application of Jordanian firms after privatization of those goals and also aimed to identify the application of the accounting methods of measuring the financial statements of companies. Study questionnaire was also used as a key tool to get the information, was the use of the arithmetic mean and standard deviation as methods of statistical. Study find the following results: The Jordanian firms after privatization disclose all financial statements in the financial statements process is applied and this means that it applies the principles of financial accounting accepted ,and the information that explains the economic situation, and the project's financial feasibility and economic problems disclosed in financial statements. Most recommendation: changes in accounting and financial systems, and the quality of the available financial information, required after privatization, making divestitures decision such as the type of privatization method to use and its timing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business Research→Same topicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies→French-language works237,207→