MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6965256016 · doi:10.34989/san-2025-13

Canadians’ access to cash in 2023

2025· article· en· W6965256016 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBank of Canada Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCashFinancial institutionQuality (philosophy)KilometerTravel timeInstitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluates Canadians' access to cash in 2023, updating previous metrics on travel distances to automated banking machines (ABMs) and financial institution (FI) branches with improved quality checks on ABM locations. Despite a small decrease in the number of ABMs and branches since 2019, overall access to cash has remained unchanged, with Canadians needing to travel an average distance of 2.0 kilometers from their home locations to reach the nearest ABM and 4.6 kilometers to reach the nearest FI branch. Rural Canadians continue to travel farther to access to cash, with an average travel distance of 3.9 km to the nearest ABM and 9.7 km to the nearest branch, highlighting the need for continued monitoring in rural areas.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBank of Canada ResearchSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207