The Impact of Audit Committee Characteristics on the Creative Accounting Practices Reduction in Jordanian Commercial Banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".