Convergence et performances des systèmes bancaires des pays de l’OCDE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’internationalisation et la déréglementation des systèmes bancaires rendent indispensable l’analyse de la convergence de leurs performances. Dans cet article nous nous focalisons sur l’évolution des performances productives et des coûts de production des secteurs bancaires au sein des principaux pays de l’OCDE. En vue d’étudier la convergence des niveaux de ces indicateurs, nous proposons des méthodes d’estimation de la technologie de référence et de la fonction de coût basées sur la notion de fonction distance. Ces approches permettent de comparer les performances des systèmes bancaires non seulement à leur propre passé mais aussi aux meilleures pratiques observées dans le groupe sans imposera prioritrop d’hypothèses restrictives comme l’absence d’inefficacité technique et/ou allocative et les rendements d’échelle constants. Notre étude empirique concerne 17 pays, dont 8 appartenant à la zone euro, sur la période 1988-1998. Si nos résultats indiquent que le processus de convergence des performances bancaires est un phénomène complexe, ils révèlent indéniablement des effets de rattrapage des secteurs nationaux vis-à-vis des leaders situés sur leur frontière d’efficacité productive et de coût.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".