The Reliability of Accounting Information Systems and their Impact on Upgrading Banking Performance Indicators Comparative Study of Jordanian and Palestinian Banks Listed at Amman and Nablus Stock Exchanges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to measure the reliability of electronic accounting information system at both Jordanian and Palestinian banks, through out testing the availability of system trust principles (Sys Trust) set by American Institute of Certified Public AICPA and Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants CICA. The five set principles is to ensure the trustability and reliability of electronic accounting system were tested on Palestinian and Jordanian banks financial, operational and stocks performance indicators. This study tested the variances of including the (SysTrust) between Jordanian and Palestinian banks accounting information system, and by using appropriate data collection and data analysis tools findings are as following: - Computerized accounting systems of Jordanian and Palestinian banks give a statistical indication of the (SysTtrust) principles but at different levels. Moreover, the study found that there is statistical indication that accounting information systems make (SysTrust) principles available in financial and operational performance of the banks. But the study didn't find any difference of statistical significance between Jordanian and Palestinian banks concerning the availability of credibility principle (SysTtrust) in their (AIS). Accordingly, the study recommends the following: internal auditor should supervise the credibility of computerized systems, and that regulating and supervisory authorities of banks in Jordan and Palestine adopt the credibility as a controlling factor in the banking industry in both countries.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".