MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989370910

Analysis of empirical determinants of credit risk in the banking sector of the Republic of Serbia

2016· article· en· W6989370910 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSCIndeks · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Development and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Credit riskBank creditThe RepublicRegression analysisCredit historyInterest rateEmpirical research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is the detection and analysis of empirical determinants of credit risk in the banking sector of the Republic of Serbia. The paper is based on an analysis of results of the application of the linear regression model, during the period from the third quarter of 2008 to the third quarter of 2014. There are three main findings. Firstly, the higher lending activity of banks contributes to the increasing share of high-risk loans in the total withdrawn loans (delayed effect of 3 years). Secondly, the growth of loans as opposed to deposits contributes to the increased exposure of banks to credit risk. Thirdly, the factors that reduce the exposure of banks to credit risk increase profitability, growth of interest rate spread and real GDP growth. Bearing in mind the overall market conditions and dynamics of the economic recovery of the country, there is a general conclusion based on the results that in the coming period the question of non-performing loans (NPLs) in the Republic of Serbia will present a challenge for both lenders and borrowers.

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)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSCIndeksSame topicRegional Development and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207