MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967711147 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v6n1p224

The Determinants of Capital Buffer in the Turkish Banking System

2012· article· en· W1967711147 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gonca Atıcı, Güner Gürsoy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanel dataCapital adequacy ratioBusinessBondBasel IIIFinancial systemCapital (architecture)Generalized method of momentsTurkishCapital requirementMonetary economicsEconomicsFinanceEconometricsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to analyze the determinants of capital buffer in the Turkish Banking system and to estimate the cyclicality of capital buffer using a panel data of 87 banks covering the period 1988-2009. The data is based on the reports published by the Banks Association of Turkey. Two-step Generalized Method of Moments is implemented by using Arellano–Bond linear dynamic panel-data estimator. The study is focused on: i) economic growth, ii) asset size, iii) return on equity and iv) non-performing loans as the determinants of capital buffer. It is observed that commercial banks, including the banks under the control of Savings Deposit and Insurance Fund, move procyclically, where commercial banks, excluding the banks under Savings Deposit and Insurance Fund, fluctuate countercyclically. This finding is noteworthy since it is parallel to BASEL III, where structuring a countercyclical capital framework is emphasized.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207