MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387651809 · doi:10.61190/fsr.v26i2.3305

financial literacy of Generation Y and the influence that personality traits have on financial knowledge

2023· article· en· W4387651809 on OpenAlexaff
Robert N. Killins

Bibliographic record

VenueFinancial Services Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial literacyConscientiousnessExtraversion and introversionBig Five personality traitsPersonalityPsychologyFinanceLiteracyFinancial planBusinessSocial psychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the financial literacy of the Generation Y age cohort and explores how personality traits influence individual’s financial knowledge. Using a detailed financial literacy survey, multiple areas of financial literacy are measured (investments, budgeting, economics, risk management, and retirement planning) along with the well-known Big Five personality traits. The findings of this article suggest that the Generation Y cohort is more knowledgeable in budgeting and risk management segments of financial literacy but lack knowledge in retirement planning. Secondly, extraversion and conscientiousness are both important personality traits when regressed on individuals overall financial literacy levels. These finding help develop the insights into how behavioral and personality traits influence the cognitive and financial decision-making ability of individuals.

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)0.003
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFinancial Services ReviewSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207