MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196059471 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14090393

Financial Inclusion through Digital Financial Services (DFS): A Study in Uganda

2021· article· en· W3196059471 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jimmy Ebong, Babu George

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial inclusionMobile paymentFinancial servicesPaceBusinessMobile bankingLeverage (statistics)Momentum (technical analysis)PaymentFinancial systemCommerceFinanceMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study unravels trends and momentum in banking and mobile money channels and uptake of select services and thereafter draws implications for enhancing financial inclusion through Digital Financial Services (DFS). The Rate of Change (ROC) approach was applied to analyze the growth momentum in banking and mobile money channels in Uganda. Implications for growth momentum in banking and mobile money channels for DFS and financial inclusion was drawn from observing and making informed interpretation of such observed trends and momentum. The findings of this study imply that banks must innovate to increase their contribution towards enhancing financial inclusion. Additional channel innovations, which may infuse banking and mobile money channels, are needed for banking to leverage on growth of mobile money and regain its role in enhancing financial inclusion. Leveraging the application of digital innovations in services such as payments and digitizing alternative channels such as agent banking are likely to increase efficiencies in physical channels and the provision of banking services and thereby increase overall reach and penetration of banking. The fast pace of mobile money penetration is good for speeding up financial inclusion. However, this calls for better regulatory approaches for DFS risk reduction, consumer protection, and protecting mobile money against integrity and financial crimes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations54
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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