MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2344631104 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n5p151

The Determinants of Credit Rationing in Tunisia: A Survey among Credit Managers

2016· article· en· W2344631104 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manel Mazioud Chaabouni, Nadia Selmi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit rationingLoanBusinessCredit historyRationingAdverse selectionInformation asymmetryCredit referenceCredit enhancementCredit riskFinanceCredit crunchActuarial scienceEconomicsInterest rateEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims at explaining the financing structure of the Tunisian companies by the information asymmetry phenomenon as well as at checking whether the low share of loans in the financing of the Tunisian companies is reflected in a credit rationing. We have focused on the informational factor between banks and corporates since the contract between lenders and borrowers may include some limitations even if the legal rules do exist and are properly applied. Our analysis deals with the credit operations. We have restricted our study to the case of small and medium enterprises seeing their importance in our industrial network. We have analyzed the behavior of credit managers dealing with loan applications based on a survey addressed to the credit managers of small and medium enterprises. Our results suggest that Tunisian credit managers be risk averse-which results in a credit rationing. The estimates display that the reliability of accounting documents, the risk of adverse selection and the inefficient recovery procedures are the determinant of this rationing.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency→French-language works237,207→