MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519042659 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n10p140

Corporate Governance Quality and Cash Conversion Cycle: Evidence from Jordan

2016· article· en· W2519042659 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayat Al-Rahahleh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWorking Capital and Financial Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceStock exchangeAccountingBusinessContext (archaeology)Quality (philosophy)Finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims at examining the impact of corporate governance quality on cash conversion cycle (CCC) in Jordan. Using OLS regression for a sample of all industrial companies listed on Amman Stock Exchange during the period (2009-2013). The results revealed that CCC is affected negatively by corporate governance quality, which provides an implication to industrial companies in Jordan to boost their compliance with corporate governance code in order to improve their working capital management efficiency. Furthermore, the outcomes showed a variation in corporate governance categories between sub-samples, which supports contingency theory that rejects the approach of “one size fits all”. The findings provide implications for future studies to deal with firm characteristics as context dependent rather than simply as control variables. The results also provide implications for regulatory bodies in Jordan that highlight the importance of “comply or explain” approach to some corporate governance rules embracing the “one size does not fit all” approach. This study fills a gap in the existing literature by studying the quality of corporate governance and by using the context dependent approach.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicWorking Capital and Financial PerformanceFrench-language works237,207