MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205729262

ANALISIS FAKTOR INTERNAL DAN EKSTERNAL YANG MEMPENGARUHI NON PERFORMING LOAN PADA BANK CAMPURAN DI INDONESIA (PERIODE 2012-2017)

2020· article· id· W3205729262 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abrianti Abrianti, Sapto Jumono

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Finance and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNon-performing loanCapital adequacy ratioLoanReturn on assetsExchange rateGross domestic productInterest rateInflation (cosmology)Quarter (Canadian coin)BusinessEconomicsFinancial systemMonetary economicsFinanceStock exchangeGeographyMacroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study aims to determine the effect of external factors by using BI Rate, Inflation, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Exchange Rate and Internal Factors using Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR), Loan Deposit Ratio (LDR) Return on Assets (ROA), Interest Rate Spread (IRS) Against Non Performing Loans (NPLs). Sampel selection method in this study using purposive sampling. Selected Sampel there are 10 banks from 15 Mixed banks in Indonesia. The data used is quarterly data, from the first quarter of 2012 to second quarter of 2017. The results show that Capital Adequacy Ratio, Inflation, and Gross Domestic Product growth have no significant effect on Non Performing Loan, while Loan Deposit Ratio, Return On Asset, Interest Rate Spread, BI Rate, and Exchange Rate have a significant effect on Non Performing Loan. On the other hand, external factors, internal factors simultaneously have a significant influence on the Non Performing Loan. Keywords : loan deposit ratio, return on asset, interest rate spread, capital adequacy ratio

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIslamic Finance and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207