Surveilled Inclusion and the Pitfalls of Social Fintech Platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While most studies on digital financial inclusion highlight its positive aspects, we focus on the surveillance phenomenon by investigating the role played by microcredit agents who operate digital financial platforms. We combine the concepts of surveillance capitalism and platform capitalism within the digital financial inclusion process and propose a surveilled inclusion model that considers the role of human agents interacting with clients to expand the network effects and control of the digital platform in a dialectic interplay. We combine an instrumental/in-depth case study and critical hermeneutics as methodological strategies to produce results that help to uncover the hidden agenda of social fintech organizations that use digital platforms to provide microcredit. In addition, we expand Zuboff’s concept of surveillance capitalism by including the role of microcredit agents who reinforce the imprisonment of clients in endless cycles of payment and credit renewal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".