Developing a Research Agenda for Accessible Financial Technology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial technology (FinTech) increasingly impacts economic and social participation due to the growing adoption of online banking and digital payments in everyday life. As FinTech interests emerge in academic and industry work across the globe, critical needs and opportunities arise for accessible computing communities to lead and shape the discourse on accessible FinTech. To address this, we ran an online workshop (https://accessfintechworkshop.github.io/) as part of the ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS'24) to bring together researchers and practitioners interested in designing accessible and inclusive FinTech. By identifying diverse stakeholders, key challenges, design ideas, and research questions, this workshop started developing a research agenda for accessible FinTech. We took a timely step towards building a community to support continued discussion on the complex social and user contexts around FinTech.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| 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 it