MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173830013 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14070286

Determinants of Financial Inclusion in Small and Medium Enterprises: Evidence from Ethiopia

2021· article· en· W3173830013 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Betgilu Oshora, Goshu Desalegn, Éva Görgényi-Hegyes, Mária Fekete‐Farkas, Zoltán Zéman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Bank Group
KeywordsFinancial inclusionCollateralPovertyBusinessAccess to financeSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSupply sideFinanceInclusion (mineral)Financial servicesFinancial systemEconomicsEconomic growthCommerce

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study examines the determinant factors that influence financial inclusion among small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Ethiopia. The study uses an explanatory research design and a mixed research approach with both primary and secondary sources of data. More specifically, the study adopts a multiple linear regression model. The finding of the study reveals that; supply-side factors, demand-side factors, market opportunity, and collateral requirements have a positive effect on the firm’s access to finance. On the other hand, institutional framework factors, and the costs of borrowing negatively affect the firm’s access to finance. This study suggests concerned bodies sustain rapid and inclusive economic growth and hence eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, the policymakers must build an efficient, strong, and well-functioning financial market system that provides affordable and sustainable financial service to SMEs.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations50
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207