Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen A partir de los datos de 2007 este artículo analiza la eficacia del ingreso mínimo garantizado (IMG) en Luxemburgo. En primer lugar, examinamos la eficacia comparando la proporción de hogares elegibles según se apliquen los requisitos de 2007 o de 1986. Observamos que el 5,5 por ciento de los hogares son elegibles con los requisitos de 2007 y el 3,75 por ciento con los requisitos de 1986. Esto indica que la flexibilización de los requisitos permitió llegar a más hogares pobres. El artículo analiza luego la eficacia desde otra perspectiva, el índice de abstención en 2007. Dos tercios de los hogares elegibles no recurren al IMG. Los análisis de regresión de los potenciales determinantes de la abstención confirmaron las hipótesis que suele postular la bibliografía sobre el tema, en particular el factor pecuniario —el beneficio neto obtenido del IMG— y la estigmatización, que explican en gran parte la abstención del IMG.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".