A Scoping Review Toward Framing a Research Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FinTech, the rapidly evolving new breed of technology-driven financial offerings, generates a renewed momentum by bringing together disconnected trends challenging incumbent financial services firms. In response to the increasing FinTech-enabled forces of technology innovation, process disruption, and services transformation, along with the fact that FinTech is gradually becoming an area of academic research, this chapter contributes to the innovation and technology management literature by (1) providing a mapping of current FinTech research and (2) suggesting a FinTech research agenda. A scoping review across six major databases has been conducted, leading to an N = 92 sample chosen and analyzed based on pre-determined selection criteria and according to the developed theoretical framework. The review illuminates observations with regards to the scope, conceptualization, topical themes, and research approaches revolving around extant FinTech scholarship, while providing novel and comprehensive knowledge on the underlying technology aspects, FinTech-enabled business models, and value-creation outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".