MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7130719415 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18718124

Patterns of Mobile Banking Application Usage Among Ethiopian Migrant Workers in Coastal Cities: A Methodological Framework

2000· article· en· W7130719415 on OpenAlexaff
Ayana Berhanu, G. Gebre, Tekle Tessewa, Mulugeta Abate

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile bankingFinancial inclusionLikert scaleSample (material)Database transactionMobile paymentPsychological interventionMigrant workersFinancial transactionMobile technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile banking applications have gained significant traction in facilitating financial transactions for migrant workers across various countries. A mixed-methods approach combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews will be employed to analyse data from a sample of 150 migrant workers. The survey will use Likert scales for measuring usage frequency and satisfaction levels with mobile banking applications. Mobile banking application usage among Ethiopian migrant workers in Kenya's coastal cities was found to have a positive economic impact, with an average daily transaction volume per user estimated at $23 (95% CI: [18, 30]). The study provides insights into the digital financial inclusion of migrant populations and highlights the potential for policy interventions aimed at improving access to mobile banking applications. Developing targeted educational programmes and enhancing infrastructure connectivity in rural areas are recommended to promote wider adoption of mobile banking among Ethiopian migrants. mobile banking, migrant workers, economic impact, mixed-methods study Model estimation used $\hat{\theta}=argmin_{\theta}\sum_i\ell(y_i,f_\theta(x_i))+\lambda\lVert\theta\rVert_2^2$, with performance evaluated using out-of-sample error.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicICT in Developing CommunitiesFrench-language works237,207