MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338945641 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2016.3.002

Customer classification in banking system of Iran based on the credit risk model using multi-criteria decision-making models

2016· article· en· W2338945641 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khalil Y. Khalili, Kamal Khalilpour

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTOPSISPopulationAnalytic hierarchy processData collectionTable (database)Credit riskFinancial institutionBusinessActuarial scienceFinanceComputer scienceMarketingOperations researchData miningEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most important factors of survival of financial institutes and banks in the current competitive markets is to create balance and equality among resources and consumptions as well as to keep the health of money circulation in these institutes. According to the experiences obtained from recent financial crises in the world. The lack of appropriate management of the demands of banks and financial institutions can be considered as one of the main factors of occurrence of this crisis. The objective of the present study is to identify and classify customers according to credit risk and decisions of predictive models. The present research is a survey research employing field study in terms of the data collection method. The method of collecting theoretical framework was library research and the data were collected by two ways of data of a questionnaire and real customers' financial data. To analyze the data of the questionnaire, analytical hierarchy process and to analyze real customers' financial data, the TOPSIS method were employed. The population of the study included files of real customers in one of the branches of RefahKargaran Bank in city of Tabriz, Iran. From among 800 files, 140 files were completed and using Morgan's table, 103 files were investigated. The final model was presented and with 95% of probability, if the next customer's data is entered the model, it will capable of identifying accurately the degree of customer risk.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207