ANALISIS KINERJA KEUANGAN PT BANK RAKYAT INDONESIA (PERSERO), TBK
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it