Incomes after Job‐loss in the United States: From Programme Rules to Panel Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Welfare state studies are usually motivated by one or both of two concerns: programme effects on the incidence of poverty, and the possibility of perverse incentive effects. Most research has been comparative, using cross‐national indicators from the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development and other international organizations. That research often contrasts the generosity of programmes in a number of European countries and the lack of it in the USA. Focusing on income transfers after job‐loss, in this article we critically examine the comparative evidence on US welfare state generosity and then use the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) to estimate what happens to job‐losers' incomes. The comparative analysis suggests conclusions more nuanced than found in much of the literature. The PSID analysis shows how the income effects of job‐loss vary across job‐losers and suggests that the role of unemployment compensation programmes in supporting incomes may be overstated.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it