MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102555761 · doi:10.5195/ledger.2020.206

Benchmarking Bitcoin Adoption in Canada: Awareness, Ownership and Usage in 2018

2020· article· en· W3102555761 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLedger · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessBenchmarkingSpeculationCashDatabase transactionMonetary economicsCommerceFinanceEconomicsMarketingDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bank of Canada commissioned the Bitcoin Omnibus Survey in 2016 to monitor trends in the adoption and use of Bitcoin and other cryptoassets. This report presents findings from the latest iteration of the survey, which was conducted in 2018. We find that between 2016 and 2018 the share of Canadians who were aware of Bitcoin increased from 62 percent to 89 percent and those that owned Bitcoin increased from 3 percent to 5 percent. However, the share of past owners also increased, suggesting an influx of Bitcoin owners who subsequently divested after the steep rise of prices in 2017. The main reason for owning Bitcoin remains speculation, though this share decreased slightly since 2017. On the other hand, the share of Canadians who reported using Bitcoin for transactions a few times a month or more increased. Finally, we discuss how Bitcoin adopters differ from overall Canadians with respect to their financial literacy and cash holdings.

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 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 score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.178 · 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