MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125660497 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v12n1p348

Impact of Financial Intermediaries on Nigerian Economic Growth

2021· article· en· W3125660497 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles O. Manasseh, Johnson Ifeanyi Okoh, Felicia C. Abada, Jonathan E. Ogbuabor, Felix C. Alio, Adedoyin Isola Lawal, Ifeoma C. Nwakoby, Onyinye J. Asogwa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial intermediaryEconomicsOrdinary least squaresBank creditPer capitaIntermediationFinancial systemStatisticMonetary economicsReal gross domestic productFinanceEconometricsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper empirically investigated the impact of financial intermediation of economic growth in Nigeria. Quarterly time series data generated from the World Bank Development indicator and the Nigerian Bureau of Statistic for the periods 1994Q1 to 2018q4 were used for the analysis, and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression technique was adopted for the estimation of the hypotheses. Per-capita GDP was used as a measure of economic growth, while bank deposit, bank credit and bank reserves are measures of financial intermediation. Further investigation also show that bank deposit is positively and significantly related to GDPpc, suggesting that increase in bank deposit brings about 0.244193 increases in economic growth. We further observed that bank credit impacted positively on economic growth. Though, the impact was found to be insignificant. Hence, we also found bank reserve to assert significant and positive impacted on economic growth. From the findings, we suggest for good policy reforms that may promote the efficiency and the development of bank which serve as a critical factor for economic growth in Nigeria.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207