MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2462238635 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n7p258

A Study of the Determinants of Cost and Revenue Efficiency in the Context of Islamic and Conventional Banks: The Case of Malaysia from 2006 to 2012

2016· article· en· W2462238635 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Ghroubi, Ezzeddine Abaoub

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorsk Forening for Infeksjonsmedisin
KeywordsMulticollinearityRevenueContext (archaeology)EconomicsSample (material)Banking industryIslamCapital (architecture)BusinessEconometricsRegression analysisFinancial systemFinanceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we examine the determinants of cost and revenue efficiency of Malaysian banks over the period 2006-2012. Three steps are undertaken to study a sample of 17 Islamic banks (IBs) and 20 conventional banks (CBs). In the first step, we assessed the competitiveness of the Malaysian banking sector. After solving the multicollinearity problem, as a second step, we selected three sets of independent variables: bank-specific, industry-specific and macroeconomic variables. In the last step, we estimated the efficiency models with the Feasible Generalized Least Squares (FGLS) method. The obtained results highlighted the importance of regulatory capital and size. As for the effect of competitiveness, it is found to be statistically significant only for revenue efficiency. These results may be useful to political decision-makers and regulatory authorities.

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)0.003
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 topicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies→French-language works237,207→