MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027805734

Determinant of loan loss provision in Malaysia conventional bank / Noradilah Samsudin

2013· other· en· W7027805734 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUiTM Institutional Repositories (Universiti Teknologi MARA) · 2013
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanReturn on assetsNon-performing loanProfit (economics)Asset (computer security)Quarter (Canadian coin)Panel dataOrdinary least squaresIncome statement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A loan loss provision is charge to bank profit and loss statement that creates a reserve on their balance sheets. The research problem of this study is to explore the main factor driving the changes in amount of loan loss provision in Malaysian Conventional Bank. The hypotheses testing employed regression with Panel Data Ordinary Least Square for four independent variables which is return on average assets (ROA), earning before tax and provisions (EBTP), non performing loans (NPL) and Gross Domestic Product GDP). This research will collect the data from chosen conventional bank in Malaysia that provides the complete data for this study over the period 1st quarter 2004 until 2nd quarter 2012. The result show there is positive relationship between Loan Loss Provision with Non Performing Loan, Return on Asset and Gross Domestic Product. Managers of Conventional banks can now comprehend better the factors that influence the changes in amount of loan loss provision. The findings of this study should be value to Malaysian Conventional Bank in terms of better manage their reserve to avoid from loss for their futures and smooth their earning to attract customer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUiTM Institutional Repositories (Universiti Teknologi MARA)French-language works237,207