MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099311867

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 189 Governance and Performance of Tunisian Banks

2016· article· en· W7099311867 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppropriationCorporate governanceShareholderSample (material)Control (management)Empirical researchPrivate sectorState (computer science)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing banking standards is an important process for a country’s financial and economic well being. Their importance incites governments to insure the stability and the good performance of their banking systems. Accordingly, several researchers pay a particular attention to banking governance. Specifically, shareholders-managers ’ convergence of interests and the possible repercussions of these on the performance of banks can be avoided only by implementing a solid system of governance. The main purpose of this article is to determine the impact of governance on the performance of banks, through an empirical study of a sample of 10 Tunisian banks during the period 1997-2007. Our empirical investigation shows a positive association between external administrators and performance. It is worth noting that a high number of administrators results in a negative effect on performance. The results also reveal that managers lack control while the board of directors seems to exert a lot of power. This state of affairs results from the fact of associating the role of the manager with that of the board of directors. Finally, our results reveal a negative association between the presence of a group of dominant shareholders and performance, a phenomenon which might be explained in terms of private appropriation of benefits.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 teacher head, 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 topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207