MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186077927 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v13n8p71

Gender and Poverty Reduction in Ghana: The Role of Microfinance Institutions

2021· article· en· W3186077927 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bibiana Koglinuu Batinge, Hatice Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofinancePovertyCollateralEarningsStandard of livingPoverty reductionFinancial servicesDisadvantagedGlobeBusinessEconomic growthDevelopment economicsEconomicsFinanceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inequality between men and women is widely acknowledged across many parts of the globe. For example, among paid employees in Ghana, women’s average hourly earnings were around 67% of men. The disparity in earnings perpetuates poverty. Access to financial resources is widely regarded as crucial machinery to addressing this gender disparity and reducing poverty among women. Microfinance is a conduit to increasing access to finance among poor urban and rural women who usually lack the collateral to access loans from traditional financial institutions. Notwithstanding the vital role microfinance institutions play, there is no consensus on the assertion that its impact is generally favourable. Therefore, this study investigated the role of microfinance on health, education, and standard of living, as dimensions of poverty reduction in the Techiman Municipality of Ghana. The results indicate that access to microfinance services positively correlates to health, education, living standards and poverty reduction. Therefore, it is essential to extend the reach of microfinance services to increase access further to finance and, consequently, accelerate the rate of poverty reduction within the Municipality.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.234
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207