MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283745534 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15070287

Fintech Innovations in the Financial Service Industry

2022· article· en· W4283745534 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Swamynathan Ramakrishnan, Shanmugan Joghee, Sajal Kabiraj, Malini Mittal Bishnoi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial servicesFinTechBusinessPaymentExpansiveFinancial innovationDigital RevolutionFinancePayment service providerDisruptive innovationMarketingTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital transformation underscored by the fourth industrial revolution has led to the emergence of sophisticated technology-enabled financial services known as fintech, that has swiftly altered traditional financial services space. Global adoption of fintech is rapidly increasing due to its disruptive nature and is largely embraced by participants who are underserved by traditional financial service providers. Global investments in fintech are growing rapidly year by year owing to increased interconnectivity with the digital revolution. Fintech is expansive, engulfing a plethora of innovative applications in various services including payments, financing, asset management, insurance, etc. There exists a gap in the literature and visualization research on impact and future pathway of fintech innovations in payments and financial services and role of financial regulations. This study aims to enrich the understanding of fintech innovations in payments and financing and investigate the correlation and significance of regulatory framework in maintaining a fair ecosystem. With this objective, an extant systematic review was performed using research articles published in peer-reviewed journals for the period 2014–2022 when there has been a burgeoning of interest in ‘fintech’ globally. The findings of this study contribute to the theoretical constructs of fintech innovations in the financial services industry and show that such innovations play a crucial role in shaping the nature of future of business. The results of this study have implications for researchers who could deploy this research as a reference point to get a holistic insight and a detailed mapping of innovations in fintech.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations94
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207