The state of financial inclusion research on developing countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study proposes a research agenda on financial inclusion (FI) in developing countries based on a synthesis of the literature using a combination of structured literature review and bibliometrics. The analysis is based on 183 peer-reviewed journal articles extracted from Scopus. We found that the literature can be organized into four broad themes: (1) conceptualization and impacts of FI, (2) user perceptions and adoption, (3) role of financial innovation and private sector financial institutions, and (4) role of public institutions and public policy in FI. Further, the literature is dominated by empirical studies with little theory-focused studies. The literature is fragmented, and the evidence is mixed and contested. The social implications of FI need to be studied within specific institutional contexts and care must be exercised when applying successful models from one context to the next. The research agenda is informed by a proposed conceptual model, labelled the financial inclusion diamond.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it