MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2598610268 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v10n5p13

Obstacles of Financing Small Projects by Jordanian Commercial Banks

2017· article· en· W2598610268 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abedalfattah Zuhair Al-abedallat, Naseem M Aburuman, Hamdan Moh' D Al – Hiyasat, Belal Rabah Taher Shammout

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinanceBusinessObstacleSet-asideGovernment (linguistics)PortfolioAside

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The small projects sector suffers from many constraints, especially in terms of the financial side due to weakness in the finance, the problem of the study occurs based on the presence of obstacles in financing small projects by Jordanian Commercial Banks (Banking Obstacles, Small Projects Obstacles, and Governmental Obstacles). Thus, the study seeks to identify those obstacles, and it founded there is a significant statistical impact of the obstacles (Banking obstacles, Small projects Obstacles, Governmental obstacles) on the financing of small projects by Jordanian commercial banks. Also, there is a good statistical relationship between the obstacles (Banking obstacles, Small projects Obstacles, Governmental obstacles) and the financing of small projects by Jordanian commercial bank. The study recommended that the central bank should make laws that force banks to set aside a portion of the loans portfolio to small projects. Also, there is a need for the government to provide support to small projects, specifically in the training of the human resources and in the making of an economic feasibility study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business Research→Same topicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies→French-language works237,207→