MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111886668 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v13n1p52

The Relationship Between Financial Flexibility and Market Value Added: The Mediation Effect Role of the Corporate Size (A Practical Study on a Sample of Jordanian Industry Sector Firms)

2020· article· en· W3111886668 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arshed Fouad Altameemi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSobel testMediationStock exchangeStatisticMarket value addedSample (material)BusinessValue (mathematics)VariablesFlexibility (engineering)EconomicsEconometricsMarket valueAccountingStatisticsManagementMathematicsFinanceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study aims at testing the effect of ‘Financial Flexibility’ (FF) on the market value-added by the firm size as a mediator variable. This study’s statistic sample consists of 26 companies listed on the Amman stock exchange from 2010 to 2019. The FF and market value-added are independent and dependent variables, respectively. The data analysis was done by the Baron - Kenny methodology (1986) and Sobel-Test to analyze the hypothesizes based on the corporate size’s mediation effect role. The results concluded from the study of the effect of the company size on the relationship between FF and market value-added stated that the FF has a positive statistically significant impact, and there a partial mediation of the firm size effect upon this relationship due to the mediation effect is statistically significant based on Sobel test.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207