MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reducing Financial Debt and Illiteracy in Canadian Populations Using Machine Learning Prediction Models

2025· article· W4416799555 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mariam Merza, Uchechukwu Obinwanne, Wenying Feng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBad debtPipeline (software)Functional illiteracyAutoregressive integrated moving averageDebtPredictive modellingFinancial modelingHeuristic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we conducted a study on Financial Recommender Systems using tailored prediction and recommendation models. As financial debt and illiteracy rise across Canada, especially among Generation Z, there is a growing need for intelligent and accessible financial guidance. To address this, we synthesize a realistic dataset of 100 simulated Canadian users, we model financial behaviour using demographics, savings, debt, and expense data. Our system integrates multiple components: Isolation Forest for anomaly detection, ARIMA and LSTM for expense forecasting and a rule-based recommendation system (RecSys) to generate personalized financial advice. These elements form a unified pipeline that identifies abnormal spending, forecasts future expenses and delivers risk-aligned recommendations. Experimental results show that our hybrid forecasting model effectively predicts future financial behaviour, while the recommendation engine generates user-specific plans with heuristic scoring for priority labelling. Although this paper uses synthetic data and a rule-based RecSys, it provides proof of concept for scalable, practical applications. Future work includes real-user testing, dynamic LLM integration with an API key, and full-stack deployment.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy PredictionFrench-language works237,207