Determinants of efficiency of Indonesian Islamic rural banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficiency of Islamic Rural Banks (BPRS) and analyze the factors that determine them using a two-stage approach to Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). DEA in this study focuses on the production, intermediation, and inefficiency causes. This research was done on BPRS across Indonesia. The data were taken from a financial report for the 2013-2021 period. The source of the data was a publication from the Financial Services Authority of Indonesia. The data were analyzed using the non-parametric approach with a two-stage DEA method. The input variables were personnel costs, fixed assets, and third-party funds. The result shows that Revenue Sharing, ROA, and Growth have a significant positive effect on DEA. BOPO and inflation have a positive but insignificant effect on DEA. While NPF and FDR have negative but insignificant effects on DEA. Then CAR has a negative and not significant effect on DEA. It also shows that the variables of Revenue Sharing, NPF, ROA, CAR, FDR, BOPO growth, and inflation have a simultaneous effect on DEA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".