MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245186281 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2018.7.001

Microfinance institute’s non-financial services and women-empowerment: The role of vulnerability

2018· article· en· W4245186281 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Waseem Ul-Hameed, Hisham Bin Mohammad, Hanita Kadir Shahar

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofinanceEmpowermentVulnerability (computing)Social capitalEconomic growthBusinessCluster samplingSocioeconomicsPolitical scienceEconomicsSociologyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women-Empowerment is one of the most crucial challenge in Pakistan. Pakistani women are contributing only 25-30% in nation's economy which is quite low as compared with other developed as well as developing countries such as United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Malaysia, China, Indonesia and India. To address this problem, the primary objective of this study was to examine the role of microfinance institutions in women-empowerment. Moreover, moderating role of vulnerability was also examined. Quantitative research approach and cross-sectional research design were adopted. Data were collected from the female clients of microfinance institutes in Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Survey was conducted to collect the data and questionnaires were distributed by using area cluster sampling. SmartPLS (SEM) was used to analyze the data. It was found that non-financial services of microfinance institutes such as training/skill development programs and social capital development had positive contributions towards women-empowerment. Moreover, vulnerability moderated the relationship between social capital and women empowerment. Thus, this study contributed in the body of literature by investigating vulnerability as moderating variable. Hence, this study is beneficial for microfinance institutes to enhance womenempowerment through training/skill development and social capital development.

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)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations46
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207