MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976665046 · doi:10.11648/j.jfa.20190705.13

An Empirical Evaluation of Different Electronic Payment Channels in Nigeria

2019· article· en· W2976665046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fidelis Onyemaechi Nedozi, Chris Ikponmwen Omoregie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Finance and Accounting · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentQuarter (Canadian coin)Database transactionBusinessCommerceAccountingFinanceComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Payments system plays a very crucial role in any economy, being the channel through which financial resources flow from one segment of the economy to the other. This study has tried to empirically evaluate the electronic-payment channels and their penetration level in Nigeria from 2012 to first quarter of 2019. The main research objective was to determine given the technology revolution the level of e-payment penetration in Nigeria. Concepts of e-payment, E-payment in Nigeria and the different E-payment platforms were reviewed. The data were obtained from the secondary sources like CBN, journals, and commercial banks quarterly bulletins. The study employed descriptive statistics to ascertain the level of penetration E-payment in Nigeria. The data were analyzed using percentages. From the study, it was found that ATM dominated the penetration of E-payment in terms of volume in Nigeria from 2011 to first quarter of 2019. In terms of value NEFT dominated in 2012 and 2013 while NIP dominated from 2014 to first quarter of 2019. It is recommended that more electronic channels should be open to deepen the electronic transactions in the economy to fast tract transaction as the world move into tech revolution. Also, the issue of fraud emanating from electronic transaction should be checked and reduce to give trust to consumers of such transactions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Finance and AccountingSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207