Predicting Financial Inclusion in Peru: Application of Machine Learning Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial inclusion is a fundamental and multidimensional matter that has acquired importance on the global agenda in recent years. In addition, it is still a source of great interest and concern for lawmakers, international organizations, scholars, and financial institutions worldwide. In that regard, this research focuses on Peru to assess the country’s financial inclusion condition, which continues to face significant hurdles in providing financial services to its whole population despite economic improvement. The aim of this article is twofold, based on recent data on demand for financial services and financial culture in the country: (1) to empirically test how machine learning methods, such as decision trees, random forests, artificial neural networks, XGBoost, and support vector machines, can be a valuable complement to standard models (i.e., generalized linear models like logistic regression) for assessing financial inclusion in Peru, and (2) to identify the most influential sociodemographic factors on financial inclusion assessment in the country. The results may catalyze the integration of machine learning techniques into the Peruvian financial system, garnering the interest of finance researchers and policymakers committed to augmenting financial access and utilization among Peruvian consumers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".