MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100215770

Micro-Lenders Sub-Prime Lending in South Africa Implications for Credit Bureaux and Credit Scoring By Raymond Anderson Senior Manager – Credit Scoring

2011· article· en· W7100215770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamCredit historyCredit crunchCredit referenceCredit riskBond marketBanking industry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the sub-prime market in South Africa, which within the country is called “microlending”. It covers the history, current situation, and some of the challenges posed to the various market players, including micro-lenders, credit bureaux, banks, retailers, and others. This would be of particular interest to people involved in sub-prime lending in first world countries, and those from developing economies. The South African economy ranks 30 th in the world by size, and is the largest in Africa. It may be relatively small by first-world standards, yet it has a sophisticated banking system that is similar to those of the UK, Australia, and Canada. Indeed, many of the electronic banking services are superior due to a prolonged focus on automation to reduce costs. Four major banks dominate the mainstream lending market, while retailers of various products lend to facilitate sales. For many years retailers co-operated through a Consumer Credit Association to share data, while most banks relied solely on own and negative bureaux data. The two major credit bureaux in the country are TransUnionITC

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207