MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041204840 · doi:10.24815/jimeka.v5i1.15483

ANALISIS PERBANDINGAN KINERJA KEUANGAN PADA BANK UMUM SYARIAH SEBELUM DAN SESUDAH MELAKUKAN SPIN-OFF (STUDI PADA BANK BTPN SYARIAH)

2020· article· en· W3041204840 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zata Ghaisani Mazaya, Rulfah M. Daud

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Ekonomi Akuntansi · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Finance and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital adequacy ratioStatisticsMathematicsReturn on assetsQuarter (Canadian coin)Normality testBusiness administrationBusinessEconometricsFinancial systemEconomicsStatistical hypothesis testingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to determine whether there are differences in the performance of Public Islamic Bank (BTPN Syariah) before and after spin-off. The financial ratios used are CAR (Capital Adequancy Ratio), NPF (Non Performing Finance), FDR (Financing to Desposit Ratio), BOPO (Operating Expenses to Operating Income), and ROA (Return On Asset). The research method used in this research is descriptive comparative. Type of data used is secondary data in the form of quarterly financial statement of BTPN Syariah, quarter 1 2011 until with quarter 3 2014 for data before spin-off and quarter 4 2014 for data after spin-off. Data analysis was done by using Normality Test and Paired Sample T-Test. Data is processed by using SPSS (Statistical Pakage for Social Science) 25th version. The results of this study showed that at the ratios of BOPO there is no difference between before and after spin-off. While in the ratios of CAR, NPF, FDR and ROA there are difference between before and after spin-off

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Ekonomi AkuntansiSame topicIslamic Finance and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207