MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LIQUIDITY CONSTRAINTS, HOUSEHOLD WEALTH, AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP REVISITED

2012· article· en· W1491209742 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Income and Wealth · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityEconomicsConstraint (computer-aided design)Liquidity constraintAsset (computer security)Current Population SurveyDistribution (mathematics)EntrepreneurshipPopulationMonetary economicsEconometricsDemographic economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence of liquidity constraints for entrepreneurs has been challenged by the finding that business entry rates are invariant throughout most of the asset distribution and increase dramatically only at the top of this distribution. We reexamine the liquidity constraint hypothesis in three ways. First, we separately examine those who do and those who do not experience a job loss to reveal generally increasing entry rates through the wealth distribution for both groups, and show why these groups should be separately analyzed. Second, we use a two‐period simulation of the Evans and Jovanovic model to shows how exogenous wealth shocks can accurately identify the presence of liquidity constraints. Third, we provide new evidence from matched Current Population Survey data to show that housing appreciation measured at the MSA‐level is a significantly positive determinant of entry into self‐employment, after controlling for changes in local economic conditions.

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.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.238 · 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