AI for Financial Inclusion: Bailing out the Unbanked in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in promoting financial inclusion for the unbanked population in China. Based on reviewing the literature related to theories of financial inclusion and AI in financial inclusion, this study adopted a quantitative research methodology to carry out an online questionnaire survey on 62 valid participants, including bank staff, unbanked individuals, and banking users to understand their perceptions of AI-driven financial services, AI’s impacts on financial access for the unbanked population, and challenges in adopting AI for financial inclusion. The findings show that most participants recognised the convenience of AI-driven financial services, the ease of use of AI-driven banking applications, the security of AI systems in handling financial transactions, and AI-driven financial services’ protection of personal data privacy. In addition, AI-driven financial services made the Chinese unbanked population easily access banking services at low costs, get loans through AI-driven credit evaluation, and offer personalised financial products. However, financial institutions faced a digital divide, lack of digital literacy, privacy and security challenges, and ethical challenges when adopting AI for financial inclusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".