ANALISIS KINERJA KEUANGAN PT BANK RAKYAT INDONESIA (PERSERO), TBK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Bank's Financial Performance Appraisal Method continues to evolve along with developments. This study aims to compare the level of financial performance of PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia (Persero) Tbk. in the period of Quarter I 2019 -Quarter II of 2020. The Bank's Financial Performance Level is measured through several assessments. These assessments include ratio assessments (ROA, ROE, NIM, BOPO). This research is a descriptive study with a quantitative approach. The subject of this research is the financial statements of PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia Tbk. (Persero). The object used in this research is the financial statements of PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia Tbk. (Persero) Quarter I 2019 -Quarter II 2020. The data collection technique in this study is by downloading financial reports from the official website of PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia Tbk. (Persero). The analysis technique used is the ratio assessment. The results of this study note that the Financial Performance Assessment of PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia Tbk. (Persero) with this ratio approach shows a continuing downward trend.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".