MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205482951 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2022.1.002

Analysis of the efficiency of insurance companies in Indonesia

2022· article· en· W4205482951 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zaenal Abdin, R. Mahelan Prabantarikso, Edian Fahmy, Ahmad Farhan

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisTobit modelBusinessActuarial scienceInvestment (military)Control (management)Value (mathematics)FinanceEconometricsEconomicsComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Financial system stability is not only supported by the banking sector, but also the role of insurance companies that operate efficiently. The study aims to analyze the efficiency performance of general insurance companies using two stages of data envelopment analysis during the 2017 – 2018 period. The first stage of efficiency measurement using a non-parametric data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach shows the efficiency level of general insurance companies experiencing a positive trend. The performance of general insurance companies in 2018 was more efficient than in 2017 based on the value of technical efficiency (CRS) and the value of pure technical efficiency (VRS). This means that in general there has been an increase in the efficiency of general insurance companies in Indonesia from 2017 to 2018. Testing the efficiency determinants in the second stage using the Tobit regression model found that the cost ratio is the only factor that significantly influences the efficiency level of general insurance companies in Indonesia. Meanwhile, company ownership and investment adequacy ratio have no significant effect on the efficiency level of general insurance companies in Indonesia. The results of the study provide recommendations to the management of general insurance companies that efficiency performance has not reached the maximum, and to improve it, it is necessary to control costs without disturbing routine operations and development activities.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207