The effect of strategic audit on improving financial performance and risk management: Field study on Sudanese banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study's objective is to verify the effects of strategic review on the financial performance and risk management of banks in PortSudan City- Sudan. The descriptive analytical approach was used to accomplish the study's goals. By designing and distributing 180 questionnaires, of which 170 were collected. They were analyzed using path analysis using the partial squares technique. The main results indicated a positive effect of a strategic review on the financial performance of Sudanese banks. It also showed the positive effects of a strategic review on the risk management of Sudanese banks. The value of these results is that improved financial performance will make financial reports more reliable and trustworthy; therefore, it may attract more funds from the public. Investors and other stakeholders are interested in the bank's financial position and expected future operating results. They will use this information to prepare risk reports or make important business decisions. Therefore, if external decision-makers provide a reliable positive return, improving risk management will also contribute positively to shareholder value.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".