Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to compare the bank credit risk rating (BCRR) process between credit rating agency (CRA) after the 2012 revision of their methodologies using 76 banks from 23 EMENA countries rated simultaneously by S&P's, Moody's and FitchRatings. We made this comparison based on the CAMELS model with a proposed 'S’ to BCRR. We use “ordered logit” regression for the rating classes and we complete our analysis by “linear multiple” regression for the rating grades. The results show that the BCRR processes are largely consistent between agencies but not aligned. Some differences appear in the important factors and relevant variables of the intrinsic credit quality component that manifest themselves in specific behaviors distinguishing one agency to another. The three agencies agree on the factors: Capital, Earnings, Liquidity and Supports and the most relevant support variable is the sovereign rating of the bank's country of establishment. The results also confirm a consistence between the BCRR's revealed and practiced methodologies revised by the CRA.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".