L’impact des opérations transactionnelles sur la croissance de la productivité dans le secteur bancaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study seeks to establish how banking productivity is affected by taking into account, in addition to loans and deposits, transactions carried out by banks for their customers. We use a panel of data on Desjardins covering the period 1999 - 2002. Two methods are applied to measure productivity growth, that is, a variant of the standard accounting method used by Statistics Canada based on the Fisher ideal index, and the Malmquist index based on the nonparametric DEA model. We also apply two different methods for determining the price of loans and deposits. The first is the Barnet/Donovan user cost approach which is based on the difference between the effective rate and a reference rate representing the pure cost of the funds borrowed without allowance for risk. The other is the effective interest rate. As a whole, we find that transaction products do not change importantly the productivity growth. The main reason is that these products represent quite a small share in the aggregate output (between 6, 8% and 21, 4%). We observe however that the index of productivity based on the Fisher ideal indexes is higher than the aggregative indexes Malmquist for all the studied period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".