MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2935498155 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v11n4p104

The Effect of Audit Committee Characteristics on the Profitability: Panel Data Evidence

2019· article· en· W2935498155 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yazan Oroud

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexPanel dataStock exchangeAudit committeePrincipal–agent problemReturn on equityLeverage (statistics)AccountingBusinessAuditReturn on assetsFixed effects modelVariablesActuarial scienceEconometricsFinanceEconomicsCorporate governanceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study attempts to investigat the relationship between audit committee characteristics (size, independence, meeting and financial expertise) and the profitability of industrial companies listed on the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) for the years 2013 to 2017. The model of this study is theoretically founded on both the agency theory and the resource dependence theory. To examine the developed model, the data were gathered from the annual reports of 51 listed industrial firms. To analyse the data, this study utilized the panel data methodology on 51companies with 255 observations. Moreover, this study used company size and leverage as control variables. Based on the panel data results, the fixed-effect model was used to examine the effect of the experimental variables on profitability, measured by return on investment (ROI) and return on equity (ROE). The results show that the audit committee characteristics have a significant effect on profitability of the industrial companies listed on the ASE. This study evinces that the RD theory is more significant compared to the agency theory when describing CG practices in Jordan.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207