MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4368405029 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16050261

The Role of Loan-Related Risk Appetite in the Relationship between Financial Risk Considerations and MSME Growth Decision: A Mediation Analysis

2023· article· en· W4368405029 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ralph Stephen Leyeza, Mikka Marielle Boado, Obed Butacan, Donn Enrique Moreno, Lourdes Deocariza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanRisk appetiteMediationBusinessEconomicsActuarial scienceFinanceRisk management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While many studies have focused on assessing performance, studies that pivot on growth itself are limited. To contribute in this area, this study used the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) Model as its foundation in order to explore how inflation and access to finance affected loan-related risk appetite, also known as their willingness to bear either debt-related or opportunity-related risks arising from loan acceptance or avoidance, respectively. Subsequently, the mediating effect of loan-related risk appetite between inflation and access to finance and growth decision was also investigated. The analysis of links between variables under scrutiny was premised on the utilization of partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), with the data resulting from a purposive sampling method comprising 80 respondents who are owners and/or managers of their MSME business operating for at least two (2) years. The findings present that access to finance, as well as loan-related risk appetite, has direct links to growth decision. Access to finance was also found to have direct effects to loan-related risk appetite. On the other hand, it was found that loan-related risk appetite functions as a partial mediator between access to finance and growth decision. Contrarily, the aforementioned circumstances cannot be observed for inflation.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207