The Extent of the Obligation for the Islamic Banks Working in Jordan in the Disclosure of the Social Responsibility Accounting in Their Financial Statements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at identifying the commitment of the Islamic banks working in Jordan to social responsibility as well as the indenturing of the accounting standards to the Islamic banks to disclose their social responsibility in their financial statements. The population of the study consisted of the managers and assistants of the Islamic banks’ branches working in Jordan or their deputies as a random sample was chosen from said population. (35) Questionnaires were distributed from which (30) questionnaires were recollected rating at (86%) of the study sample. The most important results of the study were that the Islamic banks perform their social responsibilities towards the local community in which they work in addition to the fact that the Islamic accounting standards care for accounting disclosure for the social dimension in the financial statements of the Jordanian Islamic banks in a periodical and organized manner. The study presented several recommendations such as the necessity of embedding social information in the basic financial statements and revealing the amounts of Zakat and donations in separate items in the income statement, the granted goodwill loans statement and due Zakat amounts.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".