Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper examines the data of the income and consumption survey of 1998 with regard to savings and wealth. Households owning their property (owner households) and households renting the property (tenant households) are analysed seperatly and then compared. For further insight these two groups are also devided into East and West German households. In 1998, almost half of the West German and almost a quarter of the East German private households owned property they occupied themselves. The average owner household saves a monthly amount three times as large as the tenant household. The decisive economizing motive for the owner households is servicing its mortgages and loans. However, at the same time, there is the necessity to form reserves for the property maintainance as well as the renovation. In comparison to tenant households, owner households which no longer have to service mortgages or loans, have a higher average rate of saving. The estimate of the saving by means of regression analysis confirms the significant positive influence of the 'owner' status on savings. However, in every estimate the houshold's income proves to be the main influence on savings activity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.104 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".