MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531070073 · doi:10.29115/sp-2016-0023

Measuring Consumer Cash Holdings: Lessons from the 2013 Bank of Canada Methods-of-Payment Survey

2016· article· en· W2531070073 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heng Chen, Chris Henry, Kim P. Huynh, Qing Shen, Kyle Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueSurvey Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCashPaymentSample (material)Measure (data warehouse)BusinessWeightingVariance (accounting)PopulationActuarial scienceCash managementEstimationFinanceAccountingEconomicsComputer scienceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the methodology used in the 2013 Bank of Canada Methods-of-Payment Survey to measure cash and non-cash payments. Measuring cash holdings is particularly difficult due to the anonymous nature of cash and the fact that some subpopulations are difficult to recruit into the survey. We use a variety of methods in survey design, weighting, and variance estimation to estimate a measure of cash holdings while ensuring the sample is proportionally representative of the Canadian population.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.077 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurvey PracticeSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207