Exploring the Relationship between Financial Education and Financial Knowledge and Efficacy: Evidence from the Canadian Financial Capability Survey
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers and policymakers in many countries are interested in better understanding the relationship between financial education participation and cognitive outcomes such as financial knowledge and self‐efficacy. We used two waves of the nationally representative Canadian Financial Capability Survey along with propensity score matching (PSM) to compare outcomes between persons who had taken a financial education course to those who had not. After matching and adjusting for demographic and economic factors, financial education participants exhibited significantly higher objective and subjective financial knowledge and financial self‐efficacy scores. Post‐estimation analysis showed that higher overall objective financial knowledge scores were at least partially driven by higher scores of men. Financial education participants had higher subjective knowledge and financial self‐efficacy scores for both genders and across age. Future research into financial education ought to consider cognitive dimensions in addition to behavioral and financial outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it