ANALISIS PERBEDAAN PROFITABILITAS BANK UMUM SYARIAH \nSEBELUM DAN SESUDAH ADANYA PEMBATASAN SUKU BUNGA \nDEPOSITO BANK KONVENSIONAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to understand the differences of Islamic Banks \nprofitabilities before and after the limitation of interest on deposit of \nConventional Banks based on Supervisory Action No. SP-28 DKNS/OJK/9/2014 \npolicy by Financial Service Authority (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan) measured on two \nprofitability ratios: (1) return on asset (ROA), (2) return on equity (ROE). The \nsamples of this study are eleven (11) Islamic Banks in Indonesia chosen using \npurposive sampling method. The secondary data of this study are the quarter \nreports of Islamic Banks in from Maret 2014 to Juni 2015 (six quarter) which are \nfocused on three quarter before and after applying the policy. The data are tested \nusing hypothetical test through paired sample t-test with significant rate at 5% \n(α=0,05). The result of this study shows that the Islamic Banks profitabilities \nprojected by ROA and ROE have differences before and after the limitation of \ninterest on deposit of Conventional 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".