MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1585466646 · doi:10.3386/w9883

Fees and Surcharging in automatic teller machine networks: Non-bank ATM providers versus large banks

2003· report· en· W1585466646 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth A. Croft, Barbara J. Spencer

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2003
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessFinancial systemComputer networkChemistryTelecommunicationsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops a spacial model of ATM networks to explore the implications for banks and non-banks of interchange fees, foreign fees and surcharges applied to transactions by customers at other than an own-bank ATM.Surcharging raises the price (foreign fee plus surcharge) paid by customers above the joint profit-maximizing level achieved by setting the interchange fee at marginal cost and not surcharging.Similar size banks would agree not to surcharge, but such an agreement is typically not possible between a bank and a non-bank.A high cost of teller transactions modifies the tendency towards high ATM fees.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207