MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3167056375 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14060257

Financial Performance of Iranian Banks from 2013 to 2019: A Panel Data Approach

2021· article· en· W3167056375 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pejman Ebrahimi, Mária Fekete‐Farkas, Parisa Bouzari, Róbert Magda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanel dataStock exchangeBusinessCapital adequacy ratioFinancial systemProsperityPopulationAsset (computer security)Exchange rateFinanceEconomicsEconometricsProfit (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely believed that the financial system is dependent on the banking industry, and its strength and development are vital for economic prosperity. This paper tried to show the financial performance of Iranian banks listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) during 2013–2019, as the research population. The statistical population included 18 banks listed on the TSE from 2013 to 2019, which were sampled using a screening method. The results indicated a significant relationship between explanatory variables of capital ratio and the financial performance of banks in all models. However, a significant negative relationship was found between the inflation rate and the financial performance of banks in all models. Furthermore, it seems that banks with high asset strength are more profitable than the others. Regulators should guarantee that banks remain highly capitalized for a viable banking sector in Iran.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency→French-language works237,207→