MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168059158 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2021.4.028

Financial development in Jordan: Where do remittances play a role in bank credit?

2021· article· en· W3168059158 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hadeel Yaseen, Ghassan Omet

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Private sectorFinancial sector developmentEconomicsBank creditGross domestic productFinancial systemFinancial sectorConsumption (sociology)Monetary economicsFinanceBusinessEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Jordanian economy has been a recipient of huge amounts of remittances. Indeed, for more than a decade now, the inflow of this capital has been fluctuating around 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Within this context, the subject matter of remittances has resulted in the development of a myriad of research issues. One of these issues is the impact of remittances on financial development or bank credit to the private sector. This paper looks at the relationship between financial development and remittances in the Jordanian context. Based on the time period 1992-2019, and time series econometric techniques (co-integration and vector auto-regression, among others), this paper examines the impact of remittances on bank credit to the private sector, and on its main sectoral distributions. The estimated results reveal some interesting findings. There is no long-run stable relationship between bank credit to the private sector and remittances. However, there is a stable long-run relationship between credit to individuals (households) and remittances, and between credit to the construction sector and remittances. These conclusions imply that remittances, on average, promote private consumption in general, and residential spending.

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)0.003
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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