MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082864482

ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCES IN FINANCIAL PRODUCTIVITY BETWEEN GOVERNMENT BANKS AND PRIVATE BANKS USING VALUE ADDED METHOD

2020· article· en· W3082864482 on OpenAlexaff
V. Titi Purwantini, Endang Brotojoya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Analysis and Corporate Governance
Canadian institutionsAdidas (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsBusiness administrationFinancial systemPhysicsBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstraksi Tujuan Penelitian ini untuk memperoleh bukti empiris perbedaan Produktivitas keuangan perbankan yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia dengan metode Economic Value Aded. Sampel dalam penelitian ini adalah 4 perbankan pemerintah dan 4 perbankan swasta yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia periode 2015 sampai 2018. Teknik Pengambilan sampel dengan metode Purposive Sampling yaitu bank swasta yang meberikan deviden setiap tahun dan perbankan swasta devisa lokal. TeknikAnalisis data terdiri dari pengujian normalitas dan Uji beda Paired Sample Test Hasil Penelitian membuktikan bahwa berdasarkan Uji Beda Paired Sample Test dengan metoda EVA didapat hasil bahwa tidak ada perbedaan yang signifikan antara perbankan pemerintah dengan Swasta dalam penilaian Value Added Kata Kunci : Produktivitas Keuangan, Economic Value Adedd

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFinancial Analysis and Corporate GovernanceFrench-language works237,207