MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607491141 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v9n5p94

The Impact of Business Scale of “Shadow Banking” on Credit Risk of Commercial Banks --Take Ten Domestic Listed Commercial Banks as Examples

2017· article· en· W2607491141 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sijia Wen, Jishan Ma, Yawen Pan, Yuan Qi, Ruizhi Xiong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanBusinessShadow (psychology)Credit riskFinancial systemFinanceScale (ratio)Credit history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, according to search for the definition of shadow banking, we can make sure the business kinds of “shadow banking”, discuss the influence of business in “shadow banking” on credit risk of commercial banks, and study the elements which may increase the credit risk of commercial banks by using the semi-annual panel data during 2011-2016 of 10 listed banks. Then we can come to some primary conclusions: The credit risk of commercial banks is related to the shadow banking business. All the survival scale increment of financial products increasing, the size of entrusted loans increasing in increment, and the increasing in the size of guarantee commitments will increase the credit risk of commercial banks. There is no obvious relationship between trust loan business and bank credit risk. Our study is of great significance for the government to supervise the off-balance-sheet business of commercial banks. At the same time, it also fills the vacancy of domestic commercial banking “shadow banking” business empirical research.

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)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207