MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901180465 · doi:10.6000/1929-7092.2018.07.48

Determinants of Excess Liquidity in the Nigerian Banking System

2018· article· en· W2901180465 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ujunwa Augustine, Okoyeuzu Chinwe, Wilfred I. Ukpere

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reviews on Global Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityLiquidity riskMonetary economicsTreasuryLiquidity crisisBusinessStatutory liquidity ratioAccounting liquidityFinancial systemEconomicsLiquidity premiumAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityFinanceVolatility (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the determinants of excess liquidity in the Nigerian banking system using generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH) for the period January 2008 to December 2015. The identified determinants of banking system excess liquidity are capital importation, Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) distribution, exchange rate premium and policy instruments such as cash reserve ratio, special lending facility rate, Treasury bill rate and interbank rate. The empirical result revealed that the identified determinants have significant effect on banking system excess liquidity in Nigeria. Based on the findings, the study recommends that Nigerian monetary authority could rethink liquidity management in terms of developing robust strategies for mopping up the excess liquidity from the identified sources, rather than concentrating liquidating management strategy on the banking system

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reviews on Global EconomicsSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207