MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120492858 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14010021

Do the Determinants of Non-Performing Loans Have a Different Effect over Time? A Conditional Correlation Approach

2021· article· en· W3120492858 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mariagrazia Fallanca, Antonio Fabio Forgione, Edoardo Otranto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsEconomicsLoanCorrelationLinkage (software)sortVariety (cybernetics)StatisticsMathematicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several studies have explored the linkage between non-performing loans and major macroeconomic indicators, using a wide variety of methodologies, sometimes with different results. This occurs, we argue, because these relationships are generally derived in terms of correlation coefficients evaluated in certain time spans, which represent a sort of average level of correlations. However, such correlations are necessarily time-varying, because the relationships between bank loan indicators and macroeconomic variables could be stronger during particular periods or in correspondence with important economic events. We propose an empirical exercise using dynamic conditional correlation models, with constant and time-varying parameters. Applying these models to quarterly delinquency rates and an array of macroeconomic variables for the US, for the period 1985–2019, we find that the correlation is often negligible in this period except during periods of economic crises, in particular the early 1990 crisis and the subprime mortgage crisis.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207