MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766987464 · doi:10.20965/jaciii.2017.p1094

Comparison of International Differences in the Volatility of Economic Growth and Non-Performing Loan Ratio: A Statistical Study Based on the Quantile Regression Model

2017· article· en· W2766987464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Song Qin, Zhenlei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanNon-performing loanQuantile regressionVolatility (finance)EconometricsQuantileEconomicsFinancial systemFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the level of non-performing loans in China’s banking sector and in different countries? Has the relationship between economic growth and the non-performing loan ratio changed? Is there a difference in the effect of the economic growth of different economies on the rate of non-performing loans in the banking sector? This study analyzes the relationship between economic growth and the non-performing loan ratios and characteristics of 13 countries from 2005-2014 based on quantile regression models with panel data. The results showed that the relationship between economic growth and the non-performing loan ratio was positive before the financial crisis in 2008 but was negative after 2008. The non-performing loan ratio in Canada, Mexico, and the US was low before 2008 and high after 2008. The impact of economic growth on the non-performing loan ratio was more significant for countries with a high non-performing loan ratio than for countries with a low non-performing loan ratio.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent InformaticsSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207