MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Finlingo: A Conversational AI for Enhancing Financial Literacy Education in Africa

2024· article· en· W4407737339 on OpenAlexaff
Japheth Kiplang'at Mursi, Hamid Nach, Betty Mwende, Daniel Dhol, Faith Mwikali

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial literacyComputer scienceLiteracyFinanceBusinessPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Africa's Fintech revolution offers unprecedented financial opportunities, yet a persistent literacy gap hinders its full potential. Despite various educational initiatives, challenges in delivering effective financial education across diverse African contexts remain. This paper proposes the development of Finlingo, a conversational AI specifically designed to enhance digital financial literacy in Africa. Leveraging artificial intelligence, this tool aims to provide accurate, contextually relevant responses to a wide range of financial queries, addressing practical issues from basic concepts to complex financial products. By using natural language processing and machine learning, our approach seeks to overcome existing barriers, offering personalized, accessible, and up-to-date financial education. The AI system is designed to adapt to individual needs and encourage practical application of financial knowledge. This study contributes to ongoing efforts in promoting financial inclusion across Africa through an innovative, technology-driven solution, potentially bridging the gap between financial knowledge and effective decision-making.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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 topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207