MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382583771 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16070309

Criteria Selection of Housing Loan Based on Dominance-Based Rough Set Theory: An Indian Case

2023· article· en· W4382583771 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anupama Singh, Aarti Singh, Haresh Kumar Sharma, Saibal Majumder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanCategorizationRough setStochastic dominanceDominance (genetics)BusinessDominance-based rough set approachOrder (exchange)Actuarial scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceFinanceEconomicsEconometricsData miningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because India has one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, the Indian banking sector is essential to the country’s reform. The approval of home loans to customers is one of the crucial tasks carried out by Indian banks. The risk of loan repayment outside of the agreed-upon time frame can be reduced by accurately estimating the customer’s loan need. The majority of earlier studies on the development of banking lacked a methodical approach to analyze qualitative data. Even though the traditional multivariate statistically based factor analysis approach is a great way to categories data in qualitative analysis, the technique cannot be used without any statistical presumptions and additional information about the data. This study handles the banking attributes related to home loans using the Dominance-based Rough Set Approach (D-RSA). In order to categorize the customer’s attributes, this study suggests using a preference-based “if … then” decision rule. This rule can aid decision makers in understanding the risk factors associated with loan factors for a financial organization.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207