An integrated model of financial well-being: The role of financial behavior
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
One of the main goals of every individual or household is to achieve financial well-being. Previous research has shown that various factors influence financial well-being. This research aims to develop an integrated family financial welfare model by examining various factors that affect it. This study uses data of 1,158 households taken using an online survey. The data is analyzed using a structural equation model. The results show that financial experience, financial knowledge, financial status, and marital status directly affect financial well-being. Financial behavior significantly mediates the influence of financial behavior, financial knowledge, and locus of control on financial well-being. Furthermore, marital status strengthens the effect of financial knowledge on financial well-being, but it does not strengthen the effect of financial experience on financial well-being. This study suggests that the Government and financial authorities need to improve further the effectiveness of financial literacy and financial inclusion programs and campaign for a more frugal life among households to avoid financial difficulties.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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