MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981426733 · doi:10.33024/.v5i2.1279

Pengaruh Pembiayaan Mudharabah, MusyarakahDan Non Performing Financing (NPF) TerhadapProfitabilitas (ROE) Pada Bank Umum Syariah Di Indonesia

2016· article· id· W2981426733 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kusmiati Kusmiati, Muhammad Luthfi, Indah Lia Puspita

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Manajemen Malahayati · 2016
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Finance and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexSample (material)Value (mathematics)VariablesBusinessRegression analysisLinear regressionReturn on assetsQuarter (Canadian coin)Financial systemEconomicsEconometricsFinanceActuarial scienceStatisticsMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to test whether a variable Mudaraba, Musharaka financing and Non Performing Financing (NPF) Influence To Profitability In Syriah Commercial Bank in Indonesia. The sample used in this study is Bank Sharia which displays quarter financial statements during the period 2010-2014. The analysis in this study using multiple linear regression analysis to t Refineries on the data in this study using SPSS 16.0 (Statistical Package For The Social Science). Based on the results of the calculations on simultaneous test values obtained Fcount 10.945 and the value of P-Value (0,000), Value P-Value Performing Financing (NPF) significant effect on profitability, while partially on Financing Mudhabah (0.05), the Musharaka financing variable has no effect on the profitability of Islamic Banks with tcount significant impact on profitability is negative with tcount (0.05).

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Manajemen MalahayatiSame topicIslamic Finance and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207