MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034774308 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v12n7p21

Partial Ordered Logit Analysis of Confidence Levels in Financial Institutions in Ghana. The Case of Asante Mampong Municipality

2020· article· en· W3034774308 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isaac Abunyuwah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrdered logitInvestment (military)Financial institutionOddsEconomicsPublic sectorMarket liquidityFinancial servicesFinanceBusinessLogistic regressionPoliticsPolitical scienceEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent times the financial sector (FS) of Ghana has been saddled with liquidity and operational challenges leading to several financial policies put in place by the Central Bank. The financial crisis and its resultant stringent measures affected public confidence as many customers lost their investments/savings while some financial institutions were consolidated or collapsed. Noting the critical role of public confidence in the financial sector, this paper assessed the confidence levels in FS of Ghana, using Asante Mampong Municipality as a case study. A random sample of 384 respondents was used. Due to the ordinal nature of the dependent variable (confidence levels), the Partial Proportional Odds (PPO) model was used when the ordered logit model failed to pass the proportional odds assumption. About 46.4% of the respondents reported having ‘no confidence’ in the financial institutions of the country, while 37% indicated having ‘somehow confident’ in the sector. Less than 20% of the respondents expressed ‘confident’ (13.3%) or ‘very confident’ (3.4%) in the FS. Duration of engagement with a financial institution, loss of investment, awareness of crisis/reforms of the financial sector and income levels affected the confidence levels in the financial sector. Financial institutions are recommended to strengthen their relationship with customers by providing improved services and policy measures that secure customers investment/savings to ensure sustained and increased levels of confidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207