MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168773051 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v4n4p132

Criteria for Assessing Small and Medium Enterprises’ Borrowers in Ghana

2011· article· en· W2168773051 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Agyapong, Gloria K.Q. Agyapong, Kwabena Nkansah Darfor

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanCollateralBusinessProfit (economics)Order (exchange)FinanceScheduleGovernment (linguistics)Term loanParticipation loanActuarial scienceNon-performing loanEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focused on developing an insight into the decision making process which lenders employ in granting loans to SME borrowers. Questionnaires were administered on selected bank branch managers of conventional banks, rural banks and savings and loans companies. Findings from this study has brought to the fore some interesting revelations. The results indicated that when loan managers are deciding on whether to accept or reject an SME loan application, intended purpose of loan, repayment of previous loan, repayment schedule, type of business activity, size of loan relative to size of business and availability of collateral, ranked highest on their criteria list. On the contrary, CVs of clients, government guarantee of loans, charges on assets and gearing ranked lowest on the criteria list in terms of importance. The relevant factors identified in this study showed that lenders took particular interest in risk when dealing with SMEs. This is not out of place, as every business seeks to make profit and thus they need to be sure of recouping their monies when they lend them out to small businesses. It is thus very necessary for SME borrowers to develop an understanding of the decision criteria used by financial institutions in order to increase the probability of getting their loan request approved by fulfilling the required criteria adequately.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207