FINANCING DISTRIBUTION, FINANCING TO DEPOSIT RATIO (FDR) AND NON PERFORMING FINANCING (NPF) ON PROFITABILITY OF THE ISLAMIC RURAL BANKS IN BANTEN PROVINCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine empirical evidence about the effect of profit sharing financing, sale and purchase financing, FDR and NPF on the profitability (ROA) of Islamic Rural Banks (BPRS) in Banten Province. The type of data in this study is secondary data using panel data. The research object was five Islamic Rural Banks in Banten Province and research period from the first quarter to the fourth quarter of 2013-2019. The research sample was selected using purposive sampling technique. The analysis method used is Panel Data Regression Analysis with Eviews 10 software. The results obtained in this study indicate that there is no significant influence between the Profit Sharing variable on Profitability (ROA) partially. Sale and Purchase Financing, FDR, and NPF variables partially have a significant effect on profitability (ROA). Simultaneously, Profit Sharing, Sale and Purchase Financing, FDR, and NPF have a significant effect on Profitability (ROA).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".