MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095614839

Macroeconomic, Market and Bank-Specific Determinants of the Net Interest Margin

2013· article· en· W7095614839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLegal Cases and Commentary
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNet interest marginBalance sheetFactoringQuarter (Canadian coin)Margin (machine learning)Net interest incomeNet incomeInterest rate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this article is to identify key determinants of the net interest margin (NIM) in the Austrian banking sector. In Austria, the NIM is one of the most important income drivers of banks given the importance of relationship banking, where interest income dominates other sources of revenue. However, the NIM differs substantially among Austrian banks. Drawing on a unique supervisory dataset for the Austrian banking sector of around 42,000 observations between the first quarter of 1996 and the second quarter of 2012, we analyze under which circumstances a bank has a relatively high or low NIM. We contribute to the empirical literature on the NIM by factoring in a bank’s business model in terms of its balance sheet structure and by accounting for the financial crisis from the third quarter of 2007 onward. Our estimation results suggest that not only the determinants identified in the existing empirical literature (different types of non-interest income and expenses, various risk measures, competition, macroeconomic environment) have a significant influence on the NIM, but also our two innovations (balance sheet structure, financial crisis).

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)0.007
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 topicLegal Cases and CommentaryFrench-language works237,207