MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617308663 · doi:10.5937/bankarstvo1404122s

Determinants of the nonperforming loans level movement in the banking sector of Serbia

2014· article· en· W2617308663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nikola Stakić

Bibliographic record

VenueBankarstvo · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja
KeywordsNon-performing loanLoanFinancial systemProfitability indexUnit rootCapital adequacy ratioEconomicsBusinessInterest rateNational bankQuarter (Canadian coin)Financial sectorMonetary economicsFinanceEconometricsMarket economyGeographyIncentive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper offers an analysis of the regulatory and economic variables in the banking sector which may impact, to a greater or lesser extent, the level of nonperforming loans in Serbia. Although the banking sector, contrary to the rest of the economy, is recording positive results, there is also a simultaneously present and growing trend of nonperforming loans which is threatening to endanger the entire stability of the financial system. To that end, in the statistical and econometric analysis the point of departure were the following determinants: capital adequacy, the amount of loan loss provisions, profitability, ownership structure, and concentration in the banking sector, but also the growth rate of the real GDP. Using defined variables, what was examined was the stationary position of the observed series of data by means of an Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test of unit root, for the period from the last quarter of 2008 and up to the third quarter of 2013. According to the methodology of the National Bank of Serbia, quarterly data were used with the total of 20 observations. The main data sources were different statistical reports published by the National Bank of Serbia.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBankarstvoSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207