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 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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".