Performance evaluation and risk analysis of online banking service
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Online banking has attracted a great deal of attention from various bank stakeholders such as bankers, financial service participants, and regulators. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the online banking service performance of giant US and UK banks. Risk analysis is also conducted. Design/methodology/approach This paper connects the principal component analysis (PCA) method with the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method to estimate the online banking performance. Data are collected from 2007 annual reports of giant banks in the USA and the UK including both financial and non‐financial variables. Findings Most giant banks are performing well based on DEA analysis. Employees turn out to be a key variable that contribute most to banks' revenue. Different DEA models can be classified into cost‐ and online‐oriented models, which is consistent with existing work based on data from other nations. Originality/value This paper presents a unique demonstration of using PCA and DEA for evaluation of giant banks with online banking service.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it