MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409436283 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18040212

Fintechs and Institutions: Evidence from an Emerging Economy

2025· article· en· W4409436283 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diogo Campos-Teixeira, Jorge Tello‐Gamarra, Jo�ão Reis, André Andrade Longaray, Martín Hernani-Merino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Institutions play a vital role in restricting or encouraging the performance of any economic agent. In this context, fintechs represent a vector of exponential change in the global financial system and its institutions. However, despite the existing relationship between fintechs and institutions, there is a need for more studies exploring the connections between them. Beginning with a framework that integrates aspects of the relation between fintechs and institutions in the financial system, the objective of this article is to empirically demonstrate the interaction between fintechs and financial system institutions in an emerging country. To do so, the chosen research method was an embedded case study, which involved documental analysis and semi-structured interviews conducted with different agents in the Brazilian financial system, belonging to the following categories: technology providers, fintechs, regulatory institutions, financial institutions, and consumers. The findings validate the applicability of the theoretical framework, highlighting that fintechs drive institutional changes across stakeholders with different characteristic traits. Based on these results, we created theoretical propositions that guide future studies on the topic of fintechs and institutions. This study’s contributions provide valuable insights for financial policymakers, regulators, and technology providers, particularly regarding the adaptation of regulatory frameworks and technological infrastructures in emerging economies. For policymakers, this study suggests guidelines to foster financial inclusion through fintech initiatives, while managers are encouraged to develop strategies that reduce operational gaps in digital financial services.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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