The Integration of Big Data and Artificial Neural Networks for Enhancing Credit Risk Scoring in Emerging Markets: Evidence from Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the effectiveness of technology models in credit risk scoring modeling in emerging markets. the study proposes evaluation methods for credit risk scoring modeling for current and potential borrowers through an investigation into the Egyptian banking industry by offering and examining a framework for the integration of big data and artificial neural networks based on systematic and unsystematic risk for both the macroeconomic environment and characteristics of current and potential borrowers. The data for the borrowers under examination covers the period from 2015 to 2019 for 75 firms, excluding 2020 and 2021 data to isolate the impact of COVID-19 on the results of the inferred statistics. Artificial Neural Networks was training within 25 firms under NeuroXL program but examination for 50 firms. The study found the ability of artificial neural networks to rank the commitment of borrowers in Egyptian banks under big data about the firm and Egyptian economy. Additions to discrepancy between the proposed model against some traditional models. Finally; The Integration of Big Data and ANN can help banks to bring out the value of data within create a level of financial stability for banks. Especially in emerging markets characterized by information inefficiency.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".