Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial literacy is a well-established area of research. The incorporation of Large Language Models (LLMs) into FinTech solutions has opened up a new avenue of research to determine how LLMs can be used to interact with users and improve financial literacy. Following previous research that focused purely on the GPT models, we have extended this work to investigate how Gemini, Copilot, and DeepSeek respond to basic accounting and finance questions from users, ranging from financially unsophisticated to expert. To investigate this, we use Cosine Similarity and the Flesch Reading Ease Score. The Cosine Similarity results show that the LLMs struggle with distinguishing between users, often defaulting to communicating as an expert. We also conduct a post-hoc analysis where the generated texts are analyzed by an accounting expert. We find that some LLM generated answers are misleading, which could place LLM users with little to no financial literacy at a significant disadvantage, and could lead to them making disastrous financial decisions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".