The determinant factors of efficiency on Islamic banking and conventional banking in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As intermediary institutions, conventional banks have larger amount of loans to third party funds than of Sharia banks. Thus, the bank needs a performance appraisal to measure banking operations through efficiency. We examine the efficiency of Islamic banks and conventional banks in Indonesia and analyzes the factors that influence the level of efficiency known as the Two-Stage Data Envelopment Analysis method. We found that there are significant efficiency differences between Islamic banking and conventional banking in the 1 st quarter 2014- 4 th quarter 2017. On the other hand, NPF and NPL results affected negatively towards Islamic and conventional banks efficiency. Asset and CAR affected positively significant toward Islamic banks efficiency. Asset and ROA had affected positively significantly toward conventional banks efficiency but CAR had affected positively insignificantly toward conventional banks. Lastly, ROA had affected positively insignificantly toward Islamic banks efficiency. JEL Classification: G31, G32, G33 DOI : https://doi.org/10.26905/jkdp.v23i3.3157
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 | 0.000 | 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".