The Mediating Role of Profitability in the Impact Relationship of Assets Tangibility on Firm Market Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate whether the asset tangibility of the listed mining and extraction firms at the Amman Stock Exchange institution affects the market value of these firms and whether firm profitability mediates the impact relationship of asset tangibility on firm market value. To achieve the objectives of this study, secondary data covering the period 2013–2022 of the entire listed mining and extraction firms were collected and used in the analysis. Tobin’s Q is used as a good indicator of firm market value, while return on assets is used as a common indicator of firm profitability. Asset tangibility is the percentage relationship of tangible fixed assets to total assets. Employing both the single and multiple linear regression methods, the results showed a significant impact of asset tangibility on firm profitability and firm market value. The results also demonstrated that firm profitability has a significant impact on firm market value. In addition, the results revealed that firm profitability mediates the effect of asset tangibility on firm market value. The empirical findings have important implications when policies that lead to higher firm value are adopted and correctly followed. More research is recommended to investigate this relationship in other industries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".