Financial Literacy of Adults in Germany FILSA Study Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The steady growing of online financial services due to the vanishing of on-site banking offers is changing the socio-economic framework individuals make financial decisions in. Financial literacy as an essential part of basic education is therefore also subject to changes. In order to investigate the individual competence of the respondents with regard to financially determined life situations, a digital questionnaire survey with integrated simulation sequences was conducted. For this purpose, a testing instrument (FILSA—Financial Literacy Study of Adults) has been developed to measure the financial literacy of adults. The validity of the construct including its five content areas was tested and the relationships between the manifest exogenous variables and financial literacy were mapped in a structural equation model. It introduces the participants (N = 212) to various financial problems and offers specific aids for founded decision-making. The study’s evaluation system takes into account the participants’ individual behavior in three case studies as well as the impact of attitude and socio-demographic factors on their decisions and behaviors, such as gender, age, and their degree of internet affinity. FILSA examines how adults make decisions with regard to finances and what benefit or impact online tools and financial advisors have on the decision-making process. Furthermore, it is possible to develop concepts for self-learning that are comprised in online tools for decision-making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".