MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321375048 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16020137

The Moderating Effect of Financial Knowledge on Financial Risk Tolerance

2023· article· en· W4321375048 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John E. Grable, Abed G. Rabbani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial riskConstruct (python library)PsychologyInvestment (military)Association (psychology)FinanceActuarial scienceSocial psychologyBusinessComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to describe a study that was designed to determine to what extent subjective and objective measures of financial knowledge moderate the relationship between an investor’s financial risk tolerance and demographic factors thought to be important descriptors of an investor’s willingness to take a financial risk. It was determined that those who identified as male, and those with more attained education and income, exhibited higher investment risk tolerance (IRT). Subjective financial knowledge (SFK) was positively associated with IRT. The relationship between gender and IRT was moderated by SFK, whereas the relationship between IRT and age was moderated by objective financial knowledge (OFK). A positive relationship between education and IRT was noted, but the relationship was moderated by OFK, whereas the association between IRT and household income was moderated by SFK. Findings from this study indicate that while SFK and OFK are positively correlated, they are not measuring the same underlying construct, and as such, each moderates IRT relationships differently.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207