Predictive Power of Random Forests in Analyzing Risk Management in Islamic Banking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study utilizes the random forest technique to investigate risk management practices and concerns in Islamic banks using survey data from 2016 to 2021. Findings reveal that larger banks provide more consistent survey responses, driven by their confidence and larger survey budgets. Moreover, a positive link is established between a country’s development, characterized by high GDPs and low inflation and interest rates, and the precision of Islamic banks’ survey responses. Analyzing risk-related concerns, the study notes a significant reduction in credit portfolio risk attributed to improved risk management practices, global economic growth, stricter regulations, and diversified asset portfolios. Concerns related to terrorism financing and cybersecurity risks have also decreased due to the better enforcement of anti-money laundering regulations and investments in cybersecurity infrastructure and education. This research enhances our understanding of risk management in Islamic banks, highlighting the impact of bank size and country development. Additionally, it emphasizes the need for ongoing analysis beyond 2021 to account for potential COVID-19 effects and evolving risk management and regulatory practices in Islamic banking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".