Evaluation of Financial Performance of Islamic Banks in Jordan (2001-2010) “A Comparative Study”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to evaluate the financial performance of two of the oldest banks in Jordan, Jordan Islamic Bank and Arab Islamic International Bank. The study population consists of the Islamic banks operating in Jordan. The Islamic Bank of Jordan and the Arab Islamic Bank were selected to compare the two banks from different aspects of the study, based on the data of the two banks during the period from 2001 to 2010. This research intended to investigate the following hypotheses:1) There are no statistically significant differences in the performance of the Islamic Bank of Jordan and the Arab Islamic International Bank through profit indicators.2) There are no significant differences in the performance of the Islamic Bank of Jordan and the Arab Islamic International Bank through liquidity indicators.3) There are no significant differences in the performance of the Islamic Bank of Jordan and the Arab Islamic International Bank through indicators of indebtedness.4) There are no significant differences in the performance of the Islamic Bank of Jordan and the Arab Islamic International Bank through indicators of activity.Both descriptive and inferential statistical analysis and results were as follows: The study found that there are no significant differences between the performance of the Arab Islamic Bank and the Jordanian Islamic Bank in the field of profitability, and no statistically significant differences in the field of liquidity, except for the percentage of total deposits / assets where the mean of this ratio to the Islamic Bank of Jordan was (87.55%) compared with Arab Islamic Bank where it was (60.78%), we conclude from that the Jordan Islamic Bank has the ability to meet short-term liabilities when due through its short-term assets more than Arab Islamic Bank. And there are statistical significance differences in the area of indebtedness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".