MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061346677 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n10p159

Socio-economic Impact of Rural Credit in Northern Vietnam: Does It Differ between Clients Belonging to the Ethnic Majority and the Minorities?

2015· article· en· W2061346677 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tran Thi Thanh Tu, Nguyen Phu Ha, Trần Thị Hoàng Yến

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseEthnic groupLoanPopulationDemographic economicsBusinessEconomic growthRural areaSocioeconomicsSurvey data collectionEconomicsPolitical scienceDemographyFinanceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper evaluates the impact of rural credit program on socio-economic development with emphasis on two classifications of clients at household level: the majority and the ethnic minorities in Vietnam. Our paper utilizes the regression analysis of survey data collected in 10 provinces from the North to the South of Vietnam. The analysis reveals that rural credit poses positive impacts on Vietnamese population living in both rural and remote areas. More specifically, an increased VND 1 million of loan would raise the income by VND 0.249 million. At the same time, it would contribute annually to create 1.548 jobs. Besides, it is worth noting that the effects of income improvement and job creation are strongly determined by household’s characteristics, i.e. number of working adults, experience of heads of households, and lending conditions in terms of loan size. In addition, rural credit facilitates the access to more nutrition of food in the minorities. Empirical results support that micro-credit intervention in the ethnic minority community has tendency to focus on job-creation and food nutrition rather than income improvement. The t-tests used in this paper support for the alternative hypothesizes that significantly different impact of rural credit program between two separated groups is reflected in terms of various variables.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207