MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W73174547

A Study of Various Technique’s for Measuring Banking Efficiency – A Significant Look at Data Envelopment Analysis

2012· article· en· W73174547 on OpenAlexaff
Sanobar Anjum

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisProfitability indexMarket liquidityLeverage (statistics)Ranking (information retrieval)Financial ratioMeasure (data warehouse)Profit (economics)BusinessComputer scienceEconomicsIndustrial organizationOperations researchEconometricsFinanceEngineeringMicroeconomicsMathematicsStatisticsData mining
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following research article discusses the technique to measure the technical efficiency of Decision Making Units(DMUs). Efficiency means to measure how well the DMUs are doing given the circumstance & inputs. Decision Making Units are similar enterprises ranging from publically held companies , Privately owned corporation, Banks, Non-profit organization, airports etc. There are many ways to calculate efficiency of DMUs. This research paper will focus on the Banking sector. Financial Ratios is one of leading methods to calculate efficiency of Banks. Liquidity, profitability, & leverage position of the enterprises are calculated to understand the ranking of various Banks. Data envelopment Analysis technique is the latest methodology to benchmark performance of Banks. Data envelopment Analysis is a non-parametric approach used through linear programming to decide efficiency of similar enterprises. The following research paper discusses the various studies conducted by authors using both financial ratios& DEA. The article also discusses research work carried out by authors on Data Envelopment Analysis, specifically.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207