Self-Organising (Kohonen) Maps for the Vietnam Banking Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the first study to use the self-organisation (Kohonen) map technique, an artificial neural network based on a non-supervised learning algorithm, to categorise Vietnamese banks into super-class groups. Drawing on unbalanced yearly data from 2008 to 2017, this study identifies two super-class groups (one and two). While group one consists of joint stock banks, group two consists of commercial state and joint stock banks. Using the non-structural indicator, the Lerner index, to capture market power, and the data enveloped analysis technique to measure bank performance, our result shows significant differences in Lerner scores (which represent bank market power) of the two groups of banks. Differences in the Lerner scores provide evidence of a group of strong banks that is isolated from other banks. This implies that this strong bank group has the potential to be monopolist and impairs Vietnam’s competitive banking environment. The reason is that group two banks may be more profitable due to greater market power, whereas group one banks may struggle to cut costs to remain viable. These findings provide a better understanding for bank executives, policymakers and regulators of the Vietnam banking industry, and ensure an efficient and competitive Vietnam banking environment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".