MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913146304 · doi:10.34989/sdp-2015-4

2013 Methods-of-Payment Survey Results

2021· preprint· en· W1913146304 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher S. Henry, Kim P. Huynh

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
FundersNutrition Obesity Research Center, University of North CarolinaDeutsche BundesbankOesterreichische Nationalbank
KeywordsPaymentIssuerBusinessCashSnapshot (computer storage)Payment service providerActuarial scienceAccountingFinanceComputer scienceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the sole issuer of bank notes, the Bank of Canada conducts methods-of-payment (MOP) surveys to obtain a detailed and representative snapshot of Canadian payment choices, with a focus on cash usage. Overall, cash usage at the point of sale has decreased since 2009, constituting 44 per cent of payment volume and 23 per cent in terms of value, and the median value of a cash transaction is about $9. Respondents’ perceptions and demographic factors are used to interpret survey data: cash is seen as a convenient, lowcost, secure and widely accepted form of payment, and is used most widely among respondents who are age 55 and above, have an income less than $45,000 or have only a high school education. The paper also provides a comprehensive view of payment innovations, such as stored-value cards, contactless credit/debit cards or mobile payments, which are often perceived as substitutes for cash.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicDigital Platforms and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207