MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409101444 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18040193

Application of a Slack-Based DEA Approach to Measure Efficiency in Public Sector Banks in India with Non-Performing Assets as an Undesirable Output

2025· article· en· W4409101444 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hitesh Arora, Ram Pratap Sinha, Padmasai Arora, Sonika Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Public sectorBusinessOperations managementEconomicsComputer scienceData miningEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ignoring the presence of non-performing assets makes efficiency measurement inappropriate and incomplete. Thus, the present study considers non-performing assets as an undesirable output and applies the slack-based efficiency model to measure the efficiency of public sector banks in India during 2004–2005 to 2018–2019. A two-metric performance assessment of sample banks is carried out using mean efficiency and the non-performing assets management ratio. This study is extended to investigate determinants of bank efficiency using a fixed effects model and dynamic panel data regression on the contextual variables. Results show that profitability as measured by return on equity (ROE) and priority sector exposure have had no impact on efficiency. However, cost of deposits and capital adequacy ratio have a significant negative impact on the efficiency of public sector banks in India. Most importantly, the study finds a decline in efficiency in recent years, indicating a necessity of serious efforts for revamping these state-owned banks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207