MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094560174 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2020.10.003

Determinants of corporate performance: Empirical evidence from the insurance companies listed on Abu Dhabi securities exchange (ADX)

2020· article· en· W3094560174 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdullah AL‐Mutairi, Hani Naser, Kamal Naser

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessRevenueProfitability indexFinanceInsurance policyAccountingActuarial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to identify factors that impact the performances of the insurance companies listed on ADX. Factors employed in this study include liquidity, general and administration expenses, risk, size, tangibility and age. The annual financial statements of all seventeen insurance companies listed on ADX covering the period 2013-2019 were sampled and analyzed through a panel regression. The analysis indicates that corporate age is the most significant positive factor that determine the profitability of the insurance companies listed on ADX. The durability of the insurance company in the GCC countries suggests that the firm has created good image, attract more customers, increased revenues to cover expenses and make profit. Thus, age is an important positive factor of the performance of insurance companies listed on ADX. Moreover, it is obvious that dissatisfied customer with the service of an insurance company will not only cease dealing with it, they deliver bad news about it by using the word of mouth and the powerful social media that play efficient role in formulating the image about the company. The outcome of this study might help investors in formulating their decision to invest in an insurance company. For instance, it helps them to focus on the age of the insurance company before they make their decision.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207