On Fintech and Financial Inclusion: Evidence from Qatar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the role of fintech adoption in enhancing financial inclusion in Qatar, with a particular focus on the mediating influence of access barriers. A structured questionnaire was administered to 220 respondents, of which 200 valid responses were retained for analysis after screening for completeness and outliers. The constructs of fintech adoption (FA), financial inclusion (FI), and access barriers (AB) were measured using validated multi-item scales adapted from prior literature. Measurement reliability and validity were confirmed through Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE), alongside confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for construct validity. A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was employed to test the hypothesized relationships, using maximum likelihood estimation with bootstrap standard errors and confidence intervals. Model fit indices indicated excellent fit (χ2 = 48.983, df = 51, p = 0.554; CFI = 1.000; TLI = 1.003; RMSEA = 0.000; SRMR = 0.036). Factor loadings were all significant (p < 0.001), supporting convergent validity. However, the structural paths from FA to FI (β = −0.020, p = 0.827), AB to FI (β = −0.077, p = 0.394), and FA to AB (β = 0.054, p = 0.527) were not significant. The indirect mediation effect of AB was also statistically insignificant (β = −0.004, p = 0.700).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".