MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3205538414

Evolution of the Lebanese banking sector legitimacy in view of the pressure of the United States Regulations

2020· article· en· W3205538414 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dany Nassar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyContext (archaeology)Compliance (psychology)Political sciencePolitical economyPublic administrationLawPoliticsEconomicsSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the recent years, many international banks have been fined because of violations of US regulations. Also, their legitimacy was challenged, and questions were raised about the strategic responses adopted by these banks to restore their legitimacy. In Lebanon, the collapse of the Lebanese Canadian Bank (LCB) due to non-compliance with US regulations has shaken the whole banking industry whose legitimacy has been affected, in addition to the compliance measures taken by this sector in face of the mounting pressure of the US Legitimacy, a major concept of the neo institutional theory is crucial for the survival of organizations. This article postulates that the Lebanese banking sector is on continuous quest for the legitimacy of the US regulator on which it is dependent to survive. Thus, the aim of this paper is to explore how the Lebanese banking sector’s legitimacy has evolved over time in view of the pressure of the US, by addressing the following question: How the US regulations affect the perception of the Lebanese banking sector legitimacy? Towards achieving this objective, this paper utilizes a retrospective longitudinal design and undertakes a qualitative content analysis of archival data from 1997 to 2018. Our findings revealed that legitimacy in the Lebanese context has passed from a cognitive legitimacy conferred by a domestic regulator before LCB to a more “pragmatic” one that is conferred by a foreign regulator after LCB.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies→French-language works237,207→