MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156083275 · doi:10.1111/jmcb.13023

Revolving versus Convenience Use of Credit Cards: Evidence from U.S. Credit Bureau Data

2023· article· en· W3156083275 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott Fulford, Scott Schuh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of money credit and banking · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit cardCredit historyCredit card interestDebtCredit referencePaymentRevolving doorCredit scoreQuarter (Canadian coin)BusinessCredit default swap indexActuarial scienceEconomicsCredit enhancementFinanceCredit risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Credit card payments and revolving debt are important for consumer theory but a key data source—credit bureau records—does not distinguish between current charges and revolving debt. We develop a theory‐based econometric methodology using a hidden Markov model to estimate the likelihood a consumer is revolving debt each quarter. We validate our approach using a new survey linked to credit bureau data. We estimate that for likely revolvers: (i) 100% of an increase in credit becomes an increase in debt eventually; (ii) credit limit changes are half as salient as debt changes; and (iii) revolving status is persistent.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of money credit and bankingSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207