MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033730257

The role of financial literacy and fraud awareness in strengthening self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs)

2022· other· en· W7033730257 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRUNE (Research UNE) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDevelopment, Ethics, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial literacyQuarter (Canadian coin)LiteracyTest (biology)Vulnerability (computing)Financial services
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current report details findings from a study that sought to better understand the vulnerability of SMSFs to fraud, focused predominantly on the role of financial literacy. In doing this, the project examined the following research questions:<br/>1. What level of financial literacy do SMSF members have? <br/>2. What level of fraud awareness do SMSF members have?<br/>3. What is the experience of SMSF members withdrawing their funds? <br/>4. How does financial literacy interact with fraud awareness and fraud vulnerability for SMSF members? <br/>The project seeks to test the following three hypotheses:<br/>1. SMSF members with lower levels of financial literacy will also have lower levels of fraud awareness.<br/>2. SMSF members with lower levels of financial literacy will have withdrawn their funds more often than those with high levels of financial literacy. <br/>3. SMSF members with low levels of fraud awareness will have withdrawn their funds more often than those with high levels of financial literacy. <br/>To answer these questions, the project used an online survey of 806 SMSF members, aged 18 years and over, who reside in Australia. The survey comprised of six modules which included questions about the respondent’s SMSF and any withdrawals, their level of financial literacy, and their attitudes and understanding of fraud. <br/>Key findings from the report indicate that: <br/>• More than half of respondents demonstrated a low level of financial literacy<br/>• Almost half of respondents demonstrated a low level of fraud awareness<br/>• One third of respondents demonstrated both a low level of financial literacy and a low level of fraud awareness<br/>• One quarter of respondents were approached during COVID-19 to assess their eligibility to withdraw funds from their SMSF or assist with a withdrawal<br/>• One third of respondents had made an early withdrawal from their SMSF<br/>• The most common amount withdrawn was between AUD$50,000 and AUD$100,000<br/>• Almost two thirds of those who withdrew their funds knew it was potentially illegal but withdrew the funds anyway<br/>• Low levels of financial literacy and low levels of fraud awareness impact negatively on those with SMSFs<br/>• Low levels of financial literacy and low levels of fraud awareness increase the vulnerability and potential exposure of SMSF holders to fraud victimisation <br/>

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.342 · 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