MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133339437 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v5n2p69

Fund Mobilization by Insurance Companies and Fixed Capital Formation: Evidence from the Nigerian Economy

2014· article· en· W2133339437 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lezaasi Lenee Torbira, Onyemachi Maxwell Ogbulu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGross fixed capital formationCapital formationEconomicsDeposit insuranceGranger causalityInsurance industryPanel dataMobilizationBusinessMonetary economicsActuarial scienceFinanceGross domestic productMacroeconomicsEconometricsHuman capitalFinancial capitalEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is an empirical investigation into the relationship between fund mobilization by insurance companies and gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) in Nigeria and specifically how the latter responds to stimuli emanating from the insurance companies. A five variable-predictor multivariate regression model was estimated and analyzed. The short run results reveal that four explanatory variables namely: premium from fire, accidents, motor vehicles and employee liabilities insurance policies positively and insignificantly correlate with Gross Fixed Capital Formation while the relationship between premium from marine insurance policies and GFCF is both negative and insignificant. In the long run, the fund mobilization variables by insurance companies positively and significantly impact on the growth of gross fixed capital formation. In addition, the Granger causality test provides no evidence of causality among the variables. The paper therefore recommends the formulation and implementation of policy measures that will increase insurance penetration, improve insurance fund mobilization and enlarge the insurance market in Nigeria.

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)0.001
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 score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207