Deposit Insurance Scheme Activities on Deposit Mobilization of International Association of Deposit Insurer Member Countries: Post Coreprinciple Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined deposit insurance schemes’ activities and its effect on deposit mobilization of the International Association of Deposit Insurers (IADI) member countries. The study dwelled on the banking sectors post-core principles of the member countries. The study assessed the effect of deposit insurance fund, deposit insurance cover, deposit insurance premium and deposit fully covered on the total deposit of the banking sectors of 21 member countries of IADI spanning the period 2014 to 2018. Data were sourced from the annual reports of the selected countries Deposit Insurance Agencies. The study adopted the ex-post facto research design. The estimating technique was panel Vector Error Correction Model (VECM). Findings from the analyses showed that deposit insurance scheme activities of member countries did not significantly affect IADI’s member countries banking sectors deposit mobilization after the implementation of the core principle. IADI, as a policy-making body must, therefore, review and localize its core principles and policies in line with member countries’ uniqueness and financial realities through investment in research in member countries to isolate unique factors peculiar to member countries and streamline policies to capture member countries’ financial and economic conditions. IADI should monitor the compliance level of member countries to ensure strict implementation of its policy and principles by member countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".