Financial and Social Performances of Islamic Microfinance Service Provider With Mobile Banking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Malaysia, Islamic microfinance institutions (IMFIs) are part of Islamic financial institutions and have been established to provide Islamic microfinance products (interest free loans). Their aim is to promote trade activities among Islamic microfinance recipients in improving their standard of living. Information and data gathered can be used as evidence to prove that Islamic microfinance has traits that provide a support system for the poorest of the poor. This study hence intends to investigate the application of technology by Islamic microfinance institutions within a context of its accounting information system through the usage of mobile banking. This study is conducted using qualitative approaches via interviews to obtain in depth understanding of mobile banking usage at an Islamic microfinance institution. Financial data, as well as data on the total number of loan recipients (sahabats) is referred by the study in investigating another aspect of social performance in terms of vicegerency and accountability of the IMFI. Extensive application of vicegerency concept in explaining the findings is parallel to Shari'ah Foundation for Accountants in outlining characteristics of Muslim accountants in preventing them from doing prohibited actions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".