MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311728615 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15120588

Estimating the Risk of Financial Distress Using a Multi-Layered Governance Criterion: Insights from Middle Eastern and North African Banks

2022· article· en· W4311728615 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Meftah Gerged, Mohamed Marie, Israa Elbendary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceFinancial distressDistressFinancial systemGovernment (linguistics)Sample (material)Panel dataEconomicsBusinessEmpirical evidenceFinanceEconometricsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we explored the association of bank-level governance and state-level governance with the likelihood of banks’ financial distress in developing economies. Using a panel data sample of 954 bank-year observations of 106 conventional banks across 14 Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries from 2010 to 2018, we found that bank governance arrangements seemed to be negatively attributed to the probability of financial distress. We also found that the relationship of political stability with financial distress prospects is—contrary to our expectation—insignificant, whereas government effectiveness negatively influences the likelihood of financial distress. Our empirical evidence offers practical implications for bank managers, regulators, and credit rating agencies, and suggests several future research avenues that can build on our findings.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency→French-language works237,207→