Efficiency and productivity of the US banking industry, 1998–2005: evidence from the Fourier cost function satisfying global regularity conditions
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
Abstract This paper provides estimates of bank efficiency and productivity in the United States, over the period from 1998 to 2005, using (for the first time) the globally flexible Fourier cost functional form, as originally proposed by Gallant ( 1982 ), and estimated subject to global theoretical regularity conditions, using procedures suggested by Gallant and Golub ( 1984 ). We find that failure to incorporate monotonicity and curvature into the estimation results in mismeasured magnitudes of cost efficiency and misleading rankings of individual banks in terms of cost efficiency. We also find that the largest two subgroups (with assets greater than 1 billion in 1998 dollars) are less efficient than the other subgroups and that the largest four bank subgroups (with assets greater than $ 400 million) experienced significant productivity gains and the smallest eight subgroups experienced insignificant productivity gains or even productivity losses. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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