MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340551357 · doi:10.6000/1929-7092.2016.05.02

Zakat and Accounting Valuation Model

2016· article· en· W2340551357 on OpenAlex
Essia Ries Ahmed, Ku Halim Bin Aiffin, Tariq Tawfeeq Yousif Alabdullah, Ahmed Zuqebah

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reviews on Global Economics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)AccountingBusinessEconomicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The valuation and measurement of assets with regard to Zakat is necessary issue from Islamic perspective. Therefore, re-value the assets regularly is needed and Islamic accounting system probably uses both historical and market selling prices with regard to enable firms to accommodate contracts and to discharge with social responsibility. Zakat accounting includes the accounting principles that relate not only to measurement and valuation but also recording, interpreting, presentation and disclosure of accounting information. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to elaborate the importance of Islamic accounting valuation adopted in zakat regard to accounting models. The application and mechanics of zakat and valuation model discussed related to the implementation of the current practices of accounting and valuation models that adopted in Islamic firms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.217 · 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