MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6887720488 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/m6kxe

Are federally mandated credit card fee disclosures more impactful when easier to access during cross-product comparisons?

2021· other· en· W6887720488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit cardCredit card interestCredit referenceATM cardCredit historyCard security codeProcess (computing)Table (database)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's Cost of Borrowing (Banks) Regulations require lenders to provide a standardized summary table (called an "information box") of certain credit card fees at the beginning of a cardholder agreement. When shopping for credit cards online, such information boxes are difficult to find until the consumer applies for a card. Delayed access to the box can make it difficult to compare between products on the basis of their fees. Here, we test whether giving customers greater access to these information boxes while they're in the process of choosing a credit card increases the likelihood that they will be attended and enables better credit card choices.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0270.002
Open science0.0190.012
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.352 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207