Total Factor Productivity and Efficiency Analysis on Islamic Banks in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study are to measure productivity and efficiency, to analyze factors which affect the level of efficiency and to analyze the correlation between productivity and efficiency of Islamic Banking in Indonesia. The objects of this study are 11 (eleven) Islamic Banks (BUS) in Indonesia which are analyzed from the second quarter of 2010 to the third quarter of 2015. The result shows only six of the eleven banks that have a good productivity level, otherwise, for efficiency, there are only three banks that efficient enough. Furthermore, the relationship between productivity and efficiency levels that are categorized into 4 (four) quadrants. In quadrant I, three banks have high productivity and efficiency namely Syariah Mandiri, Panin Syariah and Victoria Syariah; quadrant IV two banks in a low level of productivity and efficiency namely Mega Syariah and Bukopin Syariah. While the quadrant II namely BCA Syariah, BRI Syariah, and Muamalat and quadrant III namely BJB Syariah, BNI Syariah, and Maybank Syariah required further research to determine the factors that affect the productivity and efficiency relationships that occur. JEL Classification : D24; D57; D61 DOI : https://doi.org/10.26905/jkdp.v22i1.1333
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".