Katılım bankaları konvansiyonel bankalardan nasıl ayrışılır? Finansallarına ve ekonomik koşullardaki değişimlere dirençleri üzerine kıyaslamalı inceleme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates differentiations between conventional and participation banks and provides comparative analysis of their financial statements and resilience to macroeconomic changes. I examine largest commercial banks in Turkey between 4th quarter of 2013 and 4th quarter of 2020 with quarterly statements. I also study the macroeconomic variables at the same period and investigate how changes in macroeconomy affect conventional and participation banks. My analysis indicate there are some evidence that conventional and participation banks differ from each other with respect to product structure, asset composition and efficiency. My analysis also demonstrate that conventional and participation banks show different resilience levels to changes in macroeconomy. Those differences mainly are result of the sharia-compliant rules that participation banks need to obey and follow. I conclude that participation banks seem more resilient and robust to macroeconomic changes. On average, they are affected less by the changes in macroeconomy compare to other banks in my data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".