THE IMPACT OF THE SUPERVISORY STRUCTURE ON THE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF SHARIA RURAL BANKS IN INDONESIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine the criteria effect of the Commissioners Board and the Sharia Supervisory Board on financial performance with Good Corporate Governance as an intervening variable on Sharia Rural Bank in Indonesia.This research uses a quantitative approach with path analysis method and targets the population of Sharia Rural Bank throughout Indonesia. The independent variables of this study are the Commissioner’s Board and the Sharia Supervisory Board while financial performance with the proxy of Non-Performing Financing is identified as the dependent variable, and Good Corporate Governance as an intervening variable. The findings show that: the criteria of the commissioner’s board have a positive effect on Good Corporate Governance; the criteria of the Sharia Rural Bank have a positive effect on Good Corporate Governance; the criteria of the Commissioners Board and the Sharia Supervisory Board do not have a significant effect on financial performance, and Good Corporate Governance does not have an effect on financial performance. This research can potentially be used a reference point by the Sharia Rural Bank in Indonesia and the Financial Services Authority regulators in the formulation of rules regarding the criteria of the Commissioners Board and Sharia Rural Bank. Through this research, it is recommended that that the Sharia Rural Bank can form a Commissioners Board and Sharia Rural Bank professionally to increase the Good Corporate Governance and financial performance of the Sharia Rural Bank. Keywords: commissioners board, Sharia Supervisory Board, Good Corporate Governance, financial performance, Sharia Rural Banks Indonesia
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".