MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993971530 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v11n1p394

The Effect of Financial Ratios Derived From Operating Cash Flows on Jordanian Commercial Banks Earnings per Share

2019· article· en· W2993971530 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laith Abdel Rahman Abualrob, Sanaa Maswadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperating cash flowCash flowCash on cash returnCash flow statementBusinessEarnings before interest and taxesCash and cash equivalentsNet incomeEarningsCash managementCash flow forecastingFinanceMonetary economicsFinancial systemEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study tries to investigate the effect of operating cash flows ratios, which are (operating cash flows attributed to net income, operating cash flows attributed to credit facilities, and operating cash flows attributed to deposits) on earnings per share. The study was applied on Jordanian commercial banks listed on the Amman Stock Exchange during the period (2013-2017), and multiple regression analysis was used to test the study hypotheses.The most important results revealed by the study were: the ratio of operating cash flows attributed to credit facilities is considered as the most important ratio derived from the cash flow statement helping in determining the earnings per share in Jordanian commercial banks. And there is a statistically significant effect of operating cash flows attributed to net income, operating cash flows attributed to credit facilities, and operating cash flows attributed to deposit on earnings per share in Jordanian commercial banks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207