MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392386271 · doi:10.18280/ria.380134

Assessing the Impact of ATM and POS Transactions on Currency Circulation in Nigeria: A Comparison of Artificial Neural Network and Linear Regression Models

2024· article· en· W4392386271 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adedayo F. Adedotun, Odekina G. Onuche, Olumide S. Adesina, Akingbade J. Toluwalase, Adeyiga J. Adeleke, Oyewole Oluwapamilerin, Onayemi Oluwatosin, Olasumbo A. Adedotun

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCovenant University Centre for Research, Innovation and DiscoveryCovenant University
KeywordsCirculation (fluid dynamics)Artificial neural networkCurrencyLinear regressionComputer scienceStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEconomicsEngineeringMonetary economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work is aimed at assessing the impact of ATM and POS transactions on currency in circulation in Nigeria via the comparison of the Artificial Neural Network and Linear Regression models. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was used to assess the degree of relationship between currency in circulation and ATM transactions, currency in circulation and POS transactions, ATM transactions and POS transactions. In addition to this, a multiple linear regression model was also fitted on the data to in order to assess the impact of currency in circulation on ATM transactions and POS transactions. From the results obtained, it was observed that POS transactions have a significant impact on the amount of currency in circulation compared to ATM transactions because the value of POS transactions has a P-value of 1.5542E-13 which is significant at 0.05. This was further studied using the Artificial Neural Network (ANN). The Multilayer preceptor of ANN was adopted, with 70 percent of the data initially subjected to training and 30 percent for validity. Thereafter, the amount of training data was increased to 61.4% and testing data was increased to 38.6% and it was observed that there was corresponding increase in the R-square from 0.809 to 0.839. This shows that the R-square of the ANN can be improved by increasing the amount of training data and testing data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207