Does Electronic Banking Really Improve Bank Performance? Evidence in China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the performance of Chinese banks following the full adoption of e-banking system, particularly in profitability and cost efficiency performance. The study became more important with the development of e-banking and internet because of increased penetration of e-banking which has redefined the banking operations in China and in globe. Secondary method was adopted in this study. The report and data of five banks in China were used for sample analysis. The bank performance was measured in terms of return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), operating margin (OM), net interest margin (NIM) and efficiency ratio. With the data collected, the different performance means between development stage and developed stage of e-banking in China were compared. The study revealed that e-banking could improve the Chinese bank performance in terms of ROA, ROE, and OM. On the contrary, e-banking has a slight impact on Chinese bank performance with respect to NIM and efficiency ratio. The findings of this study are to provide banks with suggestions for e-banking adoption for banking operations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it