MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318486421 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16020081

Insurance Inclusion in Uganda: Impact of Perceived Value, Insurance Literacy and Perceived Trust

2023· article· en· W4318486421 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Archillies Kiwanuka, Athenia Bongani Sibindi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Actuarial scienceFinancial literacyFinancial inclusionDisability insuranceValue (mathematics)Insurance policyBusinessGroup insuranceLiteracyPsychologyGeneral insuranceEconomicsSocial psychologyIncome protection insuranceFinanceFinancial servicesStatisticsMathematicsSocial security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study examined the impact of perceived value, insurance literacy and perceived trust on insurance inclusion in Uganda. The study employed a cross-sectional design to solicit responses from 400 individuals that voluntarily enrolled on an insurance programme. The study hypotheses were tested using Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modelling. The results showed that perceived value, insurance literacy and perceived trust have a significant and positive prediction of insurance inclusion in Uganda. However, perceived trust explained more of the variations in insurance inclusion than perceived value and insurance literacy. Overall, the predictor variables explained 63.2% of the variance in insurance inclusion. This study contributes to the limited nascent literature on insurance inclusion. The implication of this study is that insurance providers need to focus on trust and delivering value to customers in order to promote insurance inclusion. Further, the study proffers advice to policymakers to include insurance literacy in the national financial inclusion strategies to foster insurance inclusion.

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)0.012
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207