MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618466284 · doi:10.5430/jbar.v6n2p1

Study on the Phenomenon of Bank Liquidity Tail

2017· article· en· W2618466284 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hongjian Qu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Administration Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityOpen market operationLiquidity riskAccounting liquidityLiquidity crisisBusinessFinancial systemChinese financial systemStatutory liquidity ratioEconomicsFinanceMonetary economicsMonetary policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The entry of foreign banks, the spread of financial crisis, the marketization of interest rates and the impact of the point of time assessment lead to the phenomenon of bank liquidity tail, which has a negative impact on commercial banks, the financial system and the national economy. This paper is based on the current situation of the phenomenon of bank liquidity tail, analyzes the reasons of bank liquidity tail from two aspects of management and supervision system of bank liquidity, and proceed from the inner bank, the central bank's monetary policy, the external environment and so on, to find credit mismatches, credit term structure mismatch, the end of the month to pay the deposit reserve, the central bank focused on open market operations, the external macro environment are the main factors of bank liquidity tail. Therefore, this paper puts forward some countermeasures to solve the problem of bank liquidity from the perspective of liquidity supervision system, the bank's own management mode, the central bank credit rationing and the external environment change.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.161 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business Administration ResearchSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207