Integration of factor analysis and Tsukamoto’s fuzzy logic method for quality control of credit provisions in rural banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Giving credit to debtors can pose a default risk. This risk arises because of an error in analyzing the credit risk rate of the debtor. Therefore, this study aims to design a framework for analyzing the credit risk rate of debtors so that the default risk can be reduced. This framework is created using the integration of factor analysis and Tsukamoto’s fuzzy logic method. This integration method can group many credit assessment variables into several decisive factors. In addition, the integration method can estimate credit risk rate firmly based on the α-predicate of each basic rule. This analytical framework is simulated on credit application data at a Rural Bank, in Indonesia. The simulation results show that there are three factors and one variable to measure the credit risk rate, namely: factor 1 represents repayment capacity, business length, working capital, and liquidity value; factor 2 represents the age and the difference between the granted and the proposed loan amount; factor 3 represents the stay length, character, and credit history; and one variable represents a dependent number. This research is expected to help credit institutions measure the credit risk rate in making credit decisions for prospective debtors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".