MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1841261755 · doi:10.18187/pjsor.v7i2-sp.307

A Bayesian Analysis of a Random Effects Small Business Loan Credit Scoring Model

2011· article· en· W1841261755 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul J. Farrell, Brenda MacGibbon, Thomas J. Tomberlin, Dale Doreen

Bibliographic record

VenuePakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityCarleton UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanLogistic regressionEconometricsBayesian probabilityMultivariate statisticsCredit riskRandom effects modelBayes' theoremNaive Bayes classifierStatisticsVariablesMathematicsRandom forestActuarial scienceComputer scienceMachine learningFinanceBusinessSupport vector machineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most important aspects of credit scoring is constructing a model that has low misclassification rates and is also flexible enough to allow for random variation. It is also well known that, when there are a large number of highly correlated variables as is typical in studies involving questionnaire data, a method must be found to reduce the number of variables to those that have high predictive power. Here we propose a Bayesian multivariate logistic regression model with both fixed and random effects for small business loan credit scoring and a variable reduction method using Bayes factors. The method is illustrated on an interesting data set based on questionnaires sent to loan officers in Canadian banks and venture capital companies

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation ResearchSame topicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy PredictionFrench-language works237,207