Bibliographic record
Abstract
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] What does the United States, Chad in sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of the war-torn Middle East have in common? They don't accept EMV-chip payment cards at point-of-sale terminals. Around the world, more than 1.2 billion cards and 15.4 million terminals are EMV-compliant. And the 1 billion cards in the U.S.? Magstripe only. is the big black hole, says Toni Merschen, formerly responsible for developing and deploying global EMV programs at MasterCard and now principal of a consulting firm in Simmerath, Germany. U.S. cards are no longer an international method of payment, he adds. EMV, which stands for Europay, MasterCard, and Visa, is an open standard for interoperability of global payments maintained by EMVco, a consortium of American Express, JCB International, MasterCard and Visa. EMV is not new. Its specifications for embedded microchips were introduced in the late 1990s and have been stable since 2002, says Merschen. Europe has been a long-time proponent of EMV (some countries there subsidized its development) and the chip technology is making serious inroads into Asia. Canada is aggressively rolling out EMV chip cards to its citizens as well. Indeed, the is the only G-20 country to continue to support magstripe payment technology. Slow out of the gate To date, only a handful of banks and credit unions are adding EMV chips to traditional magstripe payments cards. They include Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank, United Nations Federal Credit Union, and SiliconValley Bank. The reason these cards never established a base here was because there wasn't a business case for it, observes ABA's Nessa Feddis, vice-president and senior counsel for regulatory compliance. Part of that, she says, was resistance from retailers who did not want to pay to upgrade or replace card readers. Even today, only 25% of merchants choose to accept PIN transactions, according to the Federal Reserve. By contrast, says Feddis, in countries like France, which had unreliable landline telephone systems (and thus greater risk of fraud), the government subsidized adoption of chip and PIN cards. (Just like magstripe cards, EMV-standard cards can be issued with or without PINs see sidebar, p. 28.) Another view, from Randy Vanderhoof, executive director of the Smart Card Alliance, is that every part of the payments system has to be touched in order to fully process EMV-compliant transactions. With so many players, it's difficult to get the disparate parts of the payments ecosystem aligned and working together. These varied stakeholders, including issuers, acquirers, merchants, payment processors, consumers, and regulators all have differing business cases, adds Alistair Newton, vice-president, Banking and Investment Services at Gartner, Inc. He believes that is part of the reason more financial institutions have not issued these cards to date. Sorry, you're ... declined The difference in card standards is having an impact overseas. cardholders are feeling the pain as their formerly trustworthy magstripe cards are increasingly declined due to incompatible card technology, particularly at unattended kiosks found at train stations, tollbooths, and gasoline pumps. Things may get worse for travelers abroad. There have been rumblings that the European Central Bank and U.K. Payments Council are considering eliminating magstripe as an acceptable form of payment. According to an Aite Group study titled, Broken Promise of Pay Anytime, Anywhere, nearly half of travelers have experienced a problem using a issued payment card internationally. Three quarters of those cardholders reported feeling extremely frustrated and more than half (56%) said they were embarrassed. Not all travelers have had problems, but those who do tend to be vocal. Take a quick look through the postings on the blog Flyertalk. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.714 | 0.592 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".