MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297723401 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v24i4.5434

Reexamine the Role of the Financial Institution Management During Card Debt Crisis or the COVID-19

2022· article· en· W4297723401 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chih‐Hsiung Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit cardFinancial institutionBusinessDebtFinancial systemAdverse selectionInformation asymmetryMoral hazardFinanceFinancial crisisEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the increasing popularity of financial technology and the lifting of financial regulations, various financial institutions have become increasingly competitive and actively expand their consumer finance business. Changes in generational consumption behaviour have led to excessive credit expansion, excessive debt or bad credit records. All of these result in the emergence of adverse selection and moral hazard problems of information asymmetry, and finally cause the card debt crisis in 2005. This article focuses on variables such as the number of cards in circulation, retail sales volume, revolving balance, and overdue ratios of credit cards in public and private banks, and examine whether the information asymmetry in the credit card market has been improved, with the financial institution management. Furthermore, due to the COVID-19, exploring whether the information asymmetry has been worsened or improved deserves the attention of the financial authority again. The results reveal that continuous financial institution management is very important and effective during the card debt period or the pandemic.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207