MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124884230 · doi:10.18352/erlacs.9468

The Exclusion of Afro-Guyanese Hucksters in Micro-Banking

2014· article· en· W2124884230 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies | Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersUniversity of TorontoYork University
KeywordsMicrofinancePersonaPolitical scienceHumanitiesSociologyArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the 1997 Microcredit Summit in Washington DC, the primary goal of microfinance agreed to was that it was a tool to upset conventional banking and to make financial services inclusive; yet this is not the case for microfinance in Guyana. Educated Indo-Guyanese lenders admitted to their own personal biases against Afro-Guyanese as clients without remorse in this case study of 93 people. I argue in this paper that micro-banking managers and staff hold onto historically-rooted prejudices which interfere with the allocation of loans. Race is seemingly the issue that divides the populace; however, I found issues of racial, class and gender bias intertwined in the lending process that deny poor Afro-Guyanese women loans. Personal bias can affect the management of economic development pro-grammes for the poor and it should not be assumed that microfinance helps everyone.Resumen: La exclusión de los ‘hucksters’ afroguyaneses en la microbancaEn la Cumbre de Microcrédito celebrada en Washington DC en 1997, se acordó que el objetivo principal de las microfinanzas era servir como herramienta para desbaratar la banca convencional y hacer inclusivos los servicios financieros; sin embargo, éste no es el caso de las microfinanzas en Guyana. Prestamistas indoguyaneses con una buena formación se deja-ron llevar sin reparos por sus propios prejuicios personales contra los afroguyaneses como clientes en este estudio de caso de 93 personas. En este documento sostengo que los directores y el personal de la microbanca se aferran a prejuicios enraizados históricamente que interfieren en la concesión de préstamos. Aparentemente la raza es la cuestión que divide al pueblo; sin embargo, identifiqué prejuicios raciales, de clase y de género entrelazados en el proceso crediticio por los que se deniegan préstamos a mujeres afroguyanesas pobres. Los prejuicios personales pueden afectar a la gestión de los programas de desarrollo económico para los pobres y no se debe asumir que las microfinanzas ayudan a todo el mundo.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.227 · 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