Banks and Companies Relationships: Evidence from the Guinea Republic in West Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a better understanding of the relationship between banks and companies in the Guinea Republic concerning the different services that result from their collaboration and the difficulties that most companies on the verge of bankruptcy face. Financial/banking markets have become unavoidable in our socioeconomic life. Today they have become the machine of sustainability. Financial and banking institutions are the necessary canals of the impact of actors in entrepreneurial life. The financial and banking markets influence entrepreneurs' decisions and attitudes, including their business models, by setting the requirements for access to financial and banking services. This qualitative study analyses the relationship between banks and companies in the Guinea Republic. The study has adopted a case study methodology to analyze the relationship between banks and companies. The results of our study show that the relationship between Banks and companies in the Guinea Republic deserves more attention from all public and private decision-makers to make both economic sectors efficient. The significance of this research resides, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first to examine the banking-firm connection in the Guinea Republic context. Therefore, it provides essential insight. This study will inform the banks, firms, and State executives about the issues related to this relationship. The authors hope that the findings of this study and the recommendations will enable the heads of banks and companies to improve existing systems to solve the problems between the two businesses (Banks-Companies) in Guinea.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".