MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946909518 · doi:10.5539/mas.v13n6p113

The Impact of Audit Committee Characteristics on the Creative Accounting Practices Reduction in Jordanian Commercial Banks

2019· article· en· W2946909518 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khalil Suleiman Abu Saleem

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingAudit committeeAuditBusinessStock exchangeChief audit executiveSample (material)Annual reportAudit evidenceIndependence (probability theory)Panel dataTest (biology)Internal auditJoint auditFinanceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed at determining the impact of the characteristics of the Audit Committee (The effect of Activity of the Audit Committee, the size of the Audit Committee, and Independence of the Audit Committee) in reducing creative accounting practicesin Jordanian commercial banks.The study population is composed of all Jordanian banks listed on the Amman Stock Exchange (16), during the period from 2011 to 2017. The study sample is represented by all Jordanian commercial banks. The current study is based on panel data since the data combine one-time and cross-section data for a period of time. The data was composed of a set of indicators for 13 Jordanian commercial banks for the period from 2011 to 2017, and data have been collected from the banks' annual reports. The adoption of the study on the analysis of time-series data comes from the increase in degrees of freedom. The results of the hypothesis test indicate that there is a significant effect of Audit Committee characteristics on the reduction of creative accounting practices in Jordanian banks at a level of significance of 0.05 except for variable (size of the Audit Committee).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207