Analyzing the improvement of estate governance and management in Jordan using blockchain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential for transforming the estate management industry through the resolution of common inefficiencies, lack of transparency, and security concerns is presented by the use of blockchain technology into estate governance. The purpose of this article is to clarify how incorporating blockchain technology would affect estate operations and governance. This study is based on quantitative information that was collected from 317 estate management professionals using a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire. SmartPLS4 analysis demonstrates that blockchain governance has a statistically significant and robust influence on estate governance in Jordan. The impact of Blockchain Governance on Jordanian Estate Management appears to be negligible and unimportant. Furthermore, there appears to be a negligible and insignificant correlation between Jordanian estate management and estate planning methods. In-depth analysis of these theories is done in this article, which also offers insights into how blockchain technology affects estate governance dynamics and how it can affect Jordan's estate management procedures. The consequences go beyond theoretical understandings; they promote the use of blockchain technology in estate governance frameworks as a game-changing means of ensuring the safe, transparent, and effective administration of frozen estates in Jordan and elsewhere.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".