MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327635241 · doi:10.58944/tegl4439

Measuring the Effect of Covid-19 on Bank Lending: Empirical Evidence from Albania

2021· article· en· W4327635241 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Monika KOLLESHI, Anilda BOZDO

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomicus · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)EconometricsGross domestic productLoanUnemploymentEconometric modelInflation (cosmology)Actuarial scienceInterest rateMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to empirically contribute to the identification and evaluation of microeconomic and macroeconomic indicators at the level of lending in Albania. It identifies a number of important factors, such as the level of gross domestic product, return on assets, unemployment rate, inflation rate, non-performing loans rate, capital adequacy, liabilities and regulatory capital to assets risk weighted. Quantitative analysis and econometric models will study the quantitative impact of each of these factors on both the level of net credit stock and the level of new credit. The creation of these 2 econometric models will serve us to measure and evaluate the changes encountered in the dependent variable over a given period of time, as a result of shocks from other variables. Also, a current and important contribution to this thesis relates to the impact assessment of COVID-19. In order to maintain the simplicity and usefulness of the model, some realistic features of the current economy have been left out, such as the level of loan repayment etc. The study period is from the first quarter of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2020. The data used were obtained from the Bank of Albania and the Albanian Association of Banks, which were presented in the form of a time series. Despite the limited number of data considered regarding the impact of COVID-19 as well as their temporal distribution, this study with the work it performs, serves as a good starting point for further studies in this field.

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)0.005
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.146 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomicusSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207