Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purposes of this quantitative study were to examine the existence of herding behavior among investors in Amman stock exchange (ASE) at market and sector level in addition to testing the behavior during the market rising and falling and examining whether the behavior existence is different before and after the global financial crisis of 2008. The theoretical base of the study was the behavioral finance which assumes that investors are not completely rational and they may follow others when taking investment decisions. The main enquires of the study were about the existence of herding in the Jordanian market, whether it's affected by conditions of market rising and falling, and whether it's affected by the financial crisis. A quantitative design was employed to achieve the purposes of this study which covers the period 2000 - 2018. Data were obtained from ASE website and analyzed using ordinary least squares method. The results indicated that herding is absent in the Jordanian market if tested at market level while it exists in services and industrial sectors if tested at sectors level. The financial crisis did not affect the presence of herding at market level while it did affect the behavior in services and industrial sectors. Moreover, the results revealed that market condition of rising and falling affected herding at market level but not at sectors level. It is also concluded that the global financial crisis changed the presence of herding behavior during conditions of rising and falling in market and in each sector.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".