MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404511167 · doi:10.5430/afr.v13n4p12

Business Zakat Compliance Behaviour in Malaysia: Insights from SME Owners

2024· article· en· W4404511167 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohd Taufik Mohd Suffian, Masetah Ahmad Tarmizi, Liyana Ab Rahman, Siti Marlia Shamsudin, Dityawarman El Aiyubbi

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)BusinessMarketingIndustrial organizationAccountingOperations managementEconomicsPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the factors influencing business zakat compliance behaviour among SME owners in Selangor, focusing on the components of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. The independent variables analysed include self-efficacy, peer influence, incentives, and knowledge level, while zakat compliance behaviour serves as the dependent variable. Utilizing a quantitative approach, data were collected through questionnaires distributed to Malay business owners registered with the Selangor Malay Chamber of Commerce (DPMMNS). Empirical analysis conducted via SPSS reveals that self-efficacy, incentives, and knowledge level have a significant positive impact on zakat compliance, whereas peer influence exerts a negative effect. Despite zakat being a well-established religious obligation, the collection of business zakat remains disproportionately low compared to income zakat, as highlighted in a 2022 report by Lembaga Zakat Selangor. The findings emphasize the need for policymakers and zakat institutions to address these factors by developing targeted strategies to improve zakat compliance among SMEs, thereby enhancing zakat contributions and supporting the broader Muslim community.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207