MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132866960

Merger-related productivity gains in the Canadian banking industry

2004· dissertation· W7132866960 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2004
Typedissertation
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisProductivityBanking industryEfficient frontierMalmquist indexMeasure (data warehouse)Scale (ratio)Productive efficiencyFrontier
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, merger-related productivity growth in a Canadian bank is investigated using non-parametric frontier techniques. Employing Data Envelopment Analysis, efficiency improvements achieved through the merging of retail-banking branches are assessed by (i) calculating the pre-merger branch efficiency in 1999--2000, (ii) calculating the post-merger branch efficiency in 2002--2003, and (iii) comparing the pre- and post-merger results. Malmquist indices are calculated and decomposed to measure technical efficiency change and technological change. The results indicate that, on average, branches experienced technical efficiency gains after the merger. Also, in the majority of cases, branches that were closed and merged with surviving branches became more scale efficient. Moreover, branches that were directly affected by merger activities experienced greater efficiency and productivity gains than branches that were not directly affected. The results suggest that the newly merged bank has been able to capitalize on the opportunity to reduce operating costs, optimally re-allocate staff and realize synergies.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0020.006
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.337 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207