MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404968867 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17120545

Trends in the Literature About the Adoption of Digital Banking in Emerging Economies: A Bibliometric Analysis

2024· article· en· W4404968867 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julio César Acosta Prado, Joan Sebastián Rojas Rincón, Andrés Mauricio Mejía Martínez, Andrés Ricardo Riveros Tarazona

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmerging marketsScopusFinancial inclusionBusinessDigital transformationKey (lock)Emerging technologiesFinancial servicesDigital economyMarketingFinanceComputer scienceComputer securityPolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the trends in the literature about adopting digital banking in emerging economies. It is based on the concepts of digital transformation and technological adoption, which significantly impact the development of the banking industry. A quantitative approach was used through a bibliometric analysis using data from Scopus to achieve the objective. The search equation allowed 118 publications to be extracted and analyzed. The results show that digital banking in emerging countries is a growing field of research that has driven the introduction of new information technologies. The perceived usefulness of digital banking is a key factor in promoting its adoption in the market. Attributes such as security and trust were identified as affecting the level of user satisfaction. Most studies are based on technological adoption, where perceived risk, usefulness, and ease of use are key to understanding the intention to use these technologies. Some countries’ concerns about financial inclusion, cyber security, and trust in financial technology are evident. While digital banking has the potential to increase the coverage of financial services, there are concerns about cybersecurity risks and user data protection.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0430.076
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207