Validity of Altman Z-Score Model to Predict Financial Failure: Evidence From Jordan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to investigate the Validity of Altman z-score model to predict financial failure in insurance companies listed on Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) over the period 2011-2016. To achieve the goal of the study, the study depended on the different statistics analytical method and Multiple Linear Regression through doing the statistical analysis of the independent variables on the dependent variable related to the subject of the study through the (E-views) program in order to cover the analytical part of the study, in addition to the descriptive method through relying on books, periodicals, previous studies and financial reports of the insurance companies of the study’ sample, whether the direct or the indirect ones, to cover the theoretical part. The result of the study finds a high predictive power for Z-score model. Moreover, the findings reveal that Z-Score model could be valuable instrumental indicators for many users of financial statement such as financial managers, auditors, lenders, investors, to make right decisions in the face of financial failure.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it