MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558316955 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n10p22

Protection of Shareholders Minority in Joint Stock Company Pursuant to Jordan Companies Law

2016· article· en· W2558316955 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamad Ali Helalat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrarinessShareholderAppearance of improprietyLawLeaseStock (firearms)Law and economicsBusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceFinanceCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Joint Stock Company has its role in motivating the economical development of the state. In order to fulfill such role, balancing shall be achieved between Majority and Minority rights or at least restricting the majority arbitrariness in terms of decision making. Such arbitrariness means bringing the investors away from investments in such types of companies which shall, indeed, have its negative influence on the national economy. The laws and Jordanian companies' law in particular, paid specific attention in terms of minority rights protection, and in the same time recognize its existence, its right to participate in decision making and also to practice control over the majority who manage and run the company's affairs. Indeed, we cannot ignore the fact that Jordanian legislator tried much to correspond between majority and minority rights or at lease protect the minority rights. In spite of such efforts, we still witness more problems that hinder such issue. From this point this study came to clarify much of such rights, presenting and analyzing thereof in a way that enable the investor to practice in a way to achieve desired interests.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207