Form the Optimal Investment Portfolio Applied Study in the Jordanian Banking Sector (2013-2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to form the optimal investment portfolio in the Jordanian banking sector. The research covered a period (2013-2017) and the sample of the study was selected from its community of Jordanian banks listed on the Amman Stock Exchange, consisting of (15) working banks for which the necessary data are available to study. The importance of the research lies in the formation of a thought and methodology that can be applied and utilized by investors and securities analysts in the management of their investment portfolio. The study shows that the effective rate of return is higher than the required rate of return in the Jordanian commercial banks. This indicates that the commercial banks have succeeded in their estimates of the required or actual rate of return for the optimal investment portfolio banks. the correlation matrix between returns on each bank in the investment portfolio is mostly low, which confirms that the investment portfolio of Jordanian banks is efficient, as Markowitz stressed on his focus on the correlation coefficient between returns and its impact on the return and risk of the optimal investment portfolio that achieve the highest return at a certain level of risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".