MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482573779

Large Shocks and Small Changes in the Marriage Market for Famine Born Cohorts in

2008· preprint· en· W1482573779 on OpenAlexaff
Loren Brandt, Aloysius Siow, Carl Vogel

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamineCohortMarriage marketDemographic economicsEconomicsDemographyGeographyMedicineSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1958 and 1961, China experienced one of its worst famines in history. Birth rates plummeted during these years, but recovered imme- diately afterwards. The famine-born cohorts were relatively scarce in the marriage and labor markets. The famine also adversely aected the health of these cohorts. First, this paper provides estimates of the total eects of the famine on the marital behavior of famine aected cohorts in the rural areas of two hard hit provinces, Sichuan and Anhui. Unlike regression based methods, these causal estimates incorporates general equilibrium behavior, an important component of marital behavior. Next, the paper uses a structural model of the marriage market, the Choo Siow model, to decompose observed marital outcomes in quantity and quality eects of the famine. The structural estimates shows that the famine substantially reduced the marital attractiveness of the famine born cohort. The famine- born cohort, who were relatively scarce compared with their customary spouses, did not have signi…cant above average marriage rates. The mod- est decline in educational attainment of the famine born cohort does not explain the change in spousal quality of that cohort.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207