Assessing Canadian Schedule I banks using DEA window analysis and the Malmquist Index
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
In today's economy and society, performance analyses in the financial service industry attract more and more attention. The 7 largest Canadian Schedule I banks operate very large nationwide branch networks in all markets. They are not only essential for the security and strength of the Canadian financial system, but also make significant contributions to the economy across the country. They continue to pursue all the opportunities available to enhance their productivity and competitiveness. This paper examines the performance of 7 largest Canadian Schedule I banks using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) window analysis and the Malmquist Productivity Index. The DEA window analysis is applied to obtain the efficiency scores for the involved banks in the period of 1998-2007. Based on the efficiency scores the Malmquist Productivity Index was used to calculate the productivity changes. The results were further investigated and compared with economy development in Canada within the studied period. A good agreement between the model result and real economic situation was observed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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