MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296448247 · doi:10.3390/ijfs10030082

On the Role of Gender and Age in the Use of Digital Financial Services in Zimbabwe

2022· article· en· W4296448247 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Chamboko

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial inclusionMobile paymentPaymentFinancial servicesQuarter (Canadian coin)BusinessGoods and servicesPopulationDemographic economicsLow incomeSample (material)Economic growthEconomicsGeographyFinanceDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women and youth in developing countries remain unserved or underserved by formal financial services. The rise of digital financial services (DFS), including mobile money, provides a promise to accelerate financial and economic inclusion to these population segments. As a result, both academic researchers and policy makers are increasingly interested in understanding the role of gender and age in the use of DFS across use cases. To nuance this, the current study analyses data from a sample of 3000 respondents collected during the second quarter of 2022 from the ten provinces of Zimbabwe. Results from multivariate logit models, controlling for some socio-economic factors, show that in Zimbabwe, gender is not a significant predictor of receiving income through digital means, making payments for goods and services digitally, or for the frequency of DFS use. On the other hand, youth lag in the use of DFS, especially for making payments for goods and services, and in the frequency of use. Besides the findings on gender and age, the study reveals that the level of education, the source of income, locality, and the level of income are important determinants of how individuals use DFS in Zimbabwe.

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)0.001
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 score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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