MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416809499 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2025.9.003

The influence of financial behavior in mediating financial satisfaction: Systematic literature review

2025· article· en· W4416809499 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nelsi Arisandy, Sri Rahayu, Ilham Wahyudi, Yudi Yudi

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Financial literacySystematic reviewAccounting managementFinancial servicesMediationEmpirical researchPublicationTest (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research is motivated by the low level of financial welfare among lecturers, which is influenced by the complexity of economic factors, financial behavior, and the development of financial technology. In the context of Muslim society, variables play a very important role in shaping financial satisfaction, especially if mediated by healthy financial behavior. The approach used is Systematic Literature Review (SLR) with the PRISMA protocol, which includes a literature search on the Google Scholar database using the Publish or Perish tool and Bibliometric and VOSviewer analysis of publications during 2014–2024 as many as 127 articles. The four independent variables have a positive influence on financial satisfaction, either directly or indirectly through financial behavior, with sharia financial literacy and financial technology occupying the most dominant position. The integration of the four variables in a single model makes a theoretical contribution to the development of a conceptual framework that integrates cognitive, behavioral, technological, and religious value dimensions. In this paper, the variable of qona'ah attitude is used which is rarely used in the concept of financial satisfaction. This study is mainly in data sources that only include open access literature in the 2014–2024 timeframe, which has the potential to ignore important findings from paid articles or publications prior to that period. For further research, it is recommended to test this mediation model in cross-border and cultural populations, as well as the exploration of the integration of other psychological variables such as financial self-efficacy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207