Audit committee characteristics and firm performance in Jordan: The moderating effect of board of directors’ ownership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examines whether audit committee (AC) characteristics influence firm performance, and whether this relationship is moderated by board of director’s (BOD) ownership. The sample is listed manufacturing firms in Jordan. AC characteristics, as an indicator of corporate governance mechanism, include its size, meeting frequency, independence, and experience. Firm performance is proxied by return on assets (ROA). Thirty firms are included in the sample. Data are collected from 2015 to 2021 for a total of 210 observations. The first model indicates that AC meetings and independence positively and significantly influence firm performance. On the other hand, AC size is not a significant predictor of firm performance. The second model shows that the interaction effects (AC size, AC independence, and AC experience) are significant and positive on firm performance. The results provide insights on how to improve AC effectiveness so as to improve the performance of listed manufacturing firms in Jordan. They also suggest the significance of BOD ownership in enhancing internal corporate governance mechanisms, particularly the AC. Jordanian policy makers must therefore ensure the effectiveness of these mechanisms, especially AC, through relevant regulations and recommendations.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".