MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410411135 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18050266

Factors Affecting CSR Disclosure by Takaful Insurance Companies During the Pandemic Crisis

2025· article· en· W4410411135 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sameh Hachicha, Samah Abu-Alhayja, Wael Hemrit

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCorporate social responsibilityPandemicAccountingFinancial crisisCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public relationsEconomicsMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the key factors driving corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSR_DISC) by Takaful insurance companies (TKIs) in Saudi Arabia during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. We use content analysis and follow an unweighted scoring method to score the CSR_DISC index. Based on a sample of 26 Saudi-listed TKIs, for the period 2020–2024, we employ Poisson panel and negative binomial panel models to examine the interdependent relationships between CSR_DISCs and a set of corporate governance factors. We find that Saudi TKIs increased their CSR_DISCs in their financial reporting during and after the COVID-19 crisis. These findings confirm that board and firm size have a significant and negative effect on corporate CSR_DISC. However, the number of independent board members and female directors positively affect the extent of CSR_DISCs. Finally, the size of the audit committee and the Shariah supervisory board, frequency of board meetings, and profitability do not affect CSR_DISCs.

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)0.004
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207