MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336847891 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n6p131

Factors Driving the Credit Card Ownership in Italy

2016· article· en· W2336847891 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alessandra Amendola, Alfonso Pellecchia, Luca Sensini

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit cardMarital statusBusinessCredit card interestVariablesOrder (exchange)Affect (linguistics)Household incomeDemographic economicsEconomicsMarketingPaymentFinanceGeographyStatisticsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to explore the main determinants of credit card ownership by analyzing the variables that may affect the decision to hold a credit card. Using the 2012 Survey on Household Income and Wealth provided by the Bank of Italy as main source, we estimated count data models in order to identify the socio-economic, demographic and territorial variables affecting the credit card accounts held by households. Our estimates give evidence of the significance of the considered factors. In particular, we find that geographical location is an important determinant of families behavior in line with the socio-economic gap between the North and the South of Italy. Other relevant variables acting on the number of credit cards held are age, income, municipality size, gender, education and marital status. The reached results are interesting in depicting the main characteristics of cardholders and in helping the implementation of a segment-specific marketing program in the banking services industry.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicDigital Platforms and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207