The implications of artificial intelligence on the digital marketing of financial services to vulnerable customers
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming digital marketing practices. While the extant literature extensively covers AI applications that generally benefit businesses and customers, there is scant research on AI deployments that exacerbate problems for financially vulnerable customers. These customers have limited access to financial systems, services or technologies. To rectify this research deficit, this paper describes the challenges confronting businesses as they attempt to integrate AI into the digital marketing of their financial services. Ultimately, Al-enabled digital marketing is not as simple as collecting big data and using analytical algorithms; the technology may not always help businesses target their customers more effectively. This paper examines the relationships between AI, digital marketing, and financial services in relation to vulnerable customers, highlighting key implications in the collection, processing, and delivery of information, as well as the importance of human connection for optimal customer experience and engagement with financial services providers. Understanding ethical implications, as well as data and modelling challenges, is necessary for the successful deployment of AI. This study provides a theoretical framework to financial services providers, AI developers, marketers, policymakers, and academics, aiding the understanding of the precarious conditions facing vulnerable customers, and the ways in which they can more effectively be reached.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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