MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518139746 · doi:10.1111/coep.12066

WHY IS CASH (STILL) SO ENTRENCHED? INSIGHTS FROM CANADIAN SHOPPING DIARIES

2014· article· en· W1518139746 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Economic Policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentCashValue (mathematics)BusinessPayment service providerPayment cardEconomicsActuarial scienceCommerceFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One similarity among many developed economies is the predominance of cash over electronic payments in terms of payment frequency, especially for the low‐value transactions that are the bulk of retail payments. We use the Bank of Canada's 2009 Methods‐of‐Payment Survey, which collected information on consumers' payment choices through shopping diaries, to estimate a simple model of choice between cash and other payment methods. Results suggest that the main reasons cash is still a popular payment instrument in Canada, especially for low‐value transactions, are its wide acceptance among merchants compared with other alternatives, speed and ease of use, and low marginal cost when on hand . ( JEL E41 , D12 , L81 )

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.176 · 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