MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040835492 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v11n4p203

Determinants of Capital Adequacy Ratio for Pension Funds: A Case Study in Indonesia

2020· article· en· W3040835492 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sunaryo Sunaryo, Alvia Santoni, Endri Endri, Muhammad Nusjirwan Harahap

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpense ratioPanel dataPensionReturn on assetsBusinessInvestment (military)RevenueFinanceMonetary economicsEconomicsEconometricsClosed-end fund

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aims to identify factors that influence adequacy ratio of fund (RKD) of the Defined Benefit Pension Plan (PPMP) Pension Fund for 2009-2018 period such as Return on Asset (ROA), Cash Conversion Rate (CCR), Central Board Revenue (CBR), Operating Expense Ratio (OER), Investment Expense Ratio (IER), and investment. The data analysis was common effect panel data regression method and the samples were twenty pension funds. The results showed that ROA, CCR, and investment have a significant and positive influence towards RKD, CBR and OER have a significant and negative influence towards RKD. IER did not have significant influence towards RKD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207