MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039885347 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v11n4p64

The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Financial Market Development: The Case of Jordan

2020· article· en· W3039885347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Buthiena Kharabsheh, Ahlam Aldaher

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGranger causalityForeign direct investmentCausality (physics)EconomicsStock marketEconometricsAutoregressive modelJohansen testTime seriesAugmented Dickey–Fuller testMonetary economicsCointegrationMacroeconomicsError correction modelMathematicsStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the causal effect between foreign direct investment (FDI) and financial market development (FMD) in Jordan. Annual time-series data is used over the period 1978-2017. Principal component analysis is employed to create two indices to reflect FMD, namely stock market development (SMD) and banking sector development (BSD). To detect the causal effect between FDI and FMD, Vector Autoregressive Regressions, Granger Causality test and Johansen Co-integration test are employed in the analysis. In the short-run, the findings of Vector Autoregressive Regressions document a positive significant effect between SMD and FDI, however, no effect is found between BSD and FDI. The Granger Causality test shows unidirectional causality between SMD to FDI. Moreover, the Johansen Co-integration test reveals a long-run equilibrium relationship between FDI and FMD. These results are expected to have important implications for policy makers in Jordan.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.341
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 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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