MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1479889722

Unsecured Credit and Self{Employment ⁄

2006· preprint· en· W1479889722 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmet Akyol, Kartik Athreya

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2006
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBankruptcyDebtLiabilityLimited liabilityIncentiveBusinessContext (archaeology)EntrepreneurshipWelfareLiability insuranceEconomicsActuarial scienceFinanceMicroeconomicsMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limited personal liability for debts has long been justified as a tool to pro-mote entrepreneurial risk taking. Nonetheless, such limits erode repayment incen-tives, and so may increase unsecured borrowing costs. Given the tradeoff between credit costs and insurance against failure, how does liability policy matter for en-trepreneurship? The main message of this paper is that limits to liability for debt repayment, especially those created by US law through the personal bankruptcy code, create a serious barrier to entrepreneurial activity, and decrease long-run welfare. Our results emerge from a model of entrepreneurial activity in which the limited liability for debts is treated in a historically relevant context: namely, that of risk-averse households investing heavily in risky, poorly diversifiable projects. Moreover, we find that limited liability significantly alters the timing of self– employment by shifting borrowing away from younger and poorer households, to older, richer ones. In sum, strict limits to liability impede credit markets, and do so in a way that is quite regressive.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207