MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112754026 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v11n6p237

Highlighting Determinants of Financial Performance of the Jordanian Financial Sector: Panel Data Approach

2020· article· en· W3112754026 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hussain Ali Bekhet, Jad Alkareem Alhyari, Nora Yusma Mohamed Yusoff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanel dataFinancial ratioBusinessProxy (statistics)FinanceReturn on assetsProfitability indexReturn on equityMarket liquidityLeverage (statistics)Stock exchangeFinancial analysisVariablesInstrumental variableEconometricsEconomicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was aimed at identifying the main determinants of financial performance in Jordanian financial sector over 2005-2016 periods. Profitability ratio (return on equity) was used as a proxy of financial performance measurement. Meanwhile, firms’ specific variables, macroeconomic variables and non-economic factors were used as explanation variables. Panel data set for four sub-sectors of financial sector over the above period were used. Pooled OLS, Fixed effect, random effects techniques with Heteroskedasticity and Serial Correlation Robust Standard Error estimation methods were employed. The empirical results showed that liquidity and leverage were the key determinants of financial performance while risk, macroeconomic factors and non-economic factors do not affect the financial performance of financial sector in Amman Stock Exchange. Therefore, the results conclude that financial performance is mainly driven by firm specific factors (company characteristics). Thus, a sound financial performance can be obtained by giving attention to firm specific variables.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
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 science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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