MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081664329 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v1n2p140

Efficiency of Rural Banks: The Case of India

2009· article· en· W2081664329 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dilip Khankhoje, Milind Sathye

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringData envelopment analysisProduction (economics)BusinessGovernment (linguistics)Production efficiencyOperational efficiencyEconomicsFinanceMacroeconomicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to investigate whether the restructuring of regional rural banks in India –undertaken in 1993-94 - has helped improve their production efficiency. Several committees have emphasized the need to improve the efficiency of these banks which are an important arm of the rural credit system in India. Improved production efficiency in provision of services would mean lower cost and financially sustainable operations. Production efficiency has been measured using a non-parametric technique of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). To measure efficiency most directly, interest income and non-interest income were used as outputs and interest expenses and non-interest expenses were used as inputs. Efficiency scores were calculated for the years 1990 to 2002. Thereafter these scores were compared for before and after the restructuring year (1993-94). The study finds that efficiency of rural banks has significantly improved after restructuring. It seems the policy of the Government of India to restructure these banks has shown positive results and the study recommends its continuance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207