MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386025399 · doi:10.26905/jp.v19i2.9296

Does capital adequacy ratio matter during the Covid-19 outbreak? Evidence on state-owned banks in Indonesia

2023· article· en· W4386025399 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caecilya Putri Diaz, Sari Yuniarti, Eko Aristanto, Yusaq Tomo Ardianto

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Penelitian · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Capital adequacy ratioCapital (architecture)BusinessFinancial systemGovernment (linguistics)Working capitalIndonesianCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)State (computer science)State ownedMonetary economicsEconomicsFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Covid-19 epidemic has brought significant changes in the financial performance of the Indonesian banking sector. Weak economic indicators lead to a reduction in bank capital due to insufficient working capital loans. This study was conducted to find out changes in the capital adequacy ratio of state-owned banks in Indonesia during the Covid-19 pandemic. The data set is based on quarterly financial reports of state-owned banks for the 2020-2021 period. We prove that lending and NPL have an effect on CAR. In condition, there was a significant decrease in credit and a significant increase in non-performing loans starting in the third quarter of 2020 and increased slightly in the third quarter of 2021. Meanwhile, the capital adequacy ratio tends to be stable, because the government has strengthened bank capital. The study shows that state-owned banks can maintain CAR consistently and safely. This level of safe defense increases capital consistently in line with growth in lending while maintaining banking industry regulations.

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)0.004
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Penelitian→Same topicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies→French-language works237,207→