Meta-Analysis of Artificial Intelligence’s Influence on Competitive Dynamics for Small- and Medium-Sized Financial Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence adoption in financial services presents uncertain implications for competitive dynamics, particularly for smaller institutions. The literature on AI in finance is growing, but there remains a notable absence regarding the impacts on small- and medium-sized financial services firms. We conduct a meta-analysis combining a systematic literature review, sentiment bibliometrics, and network analysis to examine how AI is transforming competition across different firm sizes in the financial sector. Our analysis of 160 publications reveals predominantly positive academic sentiment toward AI in finance (mean positive sentiment 0.725 versus negative 0.586, Cohen’s d = 0.790, p < 0.0001), with anticipatory sentiment increasing significantly over time (β=2.10×10−2,p=0.007). However, network analysis reveals substantial conceptual fragmentation in the research discourse, with a low connectivity coefficient (ϕ=0.125) indicating that the field lacks unified terminology. These findings expose a critical knowledge gap: while scholars increasingly view AI as competitively advantageous, research has not coalesced around coherent models for understanding differential impacts across firm sizes. The absence of size-specific research leaves practitioners and policymakers without clear guidance on how AI adoption affects competitive positioning, particularly for smaller institutions that may face resource constraints or technological barriers. The research fragmentation identified here has direct implications for strategic planning, regulatory approaches, and employment dynamics in 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".