Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to adopt the CAMELS model to the bank credit risk rating by using simple indicators from publicly available quantifiable information retrieval from their financial statements. Then, it is to test its empirical validation after completion of its revised methodology in 2012 as response to the sub-prime crisis using the rating ‘all-in’ of 128 banks rated by Moody’s of 29 EMENA countries. We use ‘ordered logit’ regression for the variable to explain the rating classes and the bootstrap resampling techniques to assess the stability degree of the best model selected with the information criteria’s AIC. Under this scheme, the explanatory powers measured by Pseudo R2 of the best model is 56.47%. The results show that the two components: intrinsic credit quality and the support of the environment measured respectively by CAMEL factors and the proposed ‘S’ factor determine well the ‘all-in’ ratings. The sovereign rating of the bank establishment country, the size and the ‘stand-alone’ rating of the bank are the most relevant variables.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".