MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408249675 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2024.12.004

Effective factors on the Fintech business models in the electronic payment: A DEMATEL-ISM-ANP approach

2025· article· en· W4408249675 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nasser Safaie, Majid Mirzaee Ghazani

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPaymentRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementEnvironmental economicsEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, fintech has received much attention due to the introduction of new technologies in banking and electronic payment. For financial service providers to compete in the industries, they should apply the business model as a conceptual framework to improve performance. The current research is exploratory and tries to identify the factors influencing fintech design in electronic payment using the Osterwalder business model. This study aims to integrate three methods named DEMATEL, ISM, and ANP from MCDM techniques. To analyze the identified factors affecting the design of fintech in electronic payment, the indicators were examined in terms of influence and effectiveness by the DEMATEL method, then the levels of influence and effectiveness of the factors were investigated using the interpretive structural modeling method. Finally, the network analysis method was used to prioritize the factors. The findings showed that recognizing and identifying electronic payment customers is the most effective among the factors, and determining the type of relationship with customers is the most impressionable factor. In addition, after ranking the factors, the type of relationship with customers was the first rank, and the criteria of the company's cost structure and revenue streams were determined as the second and third, respectively.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207