MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1575149322 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.34.3.337

The Dynamics of Child Poverty: Britain and Germany Compared

2003· article· en· W1575149322 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen P. Jenkins, Christian Schlüter, Gertg Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyDemographic economicsEarningsEconomicsChild povertyPanel dataPanel Study of Income DynamicsGermanDevelopment economicsGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compare patterns of movements into and out of poverty by children in Britain and Western Germany using data from the British Household Panel Survey and the German Socio-Economic Panel for the period 1992-97. In Britain poverty persistence was greater, and poverty exit rates in particular were lower, than in Western Germany. In both countries, poverty was particularly persistent among children in lone parent households and households with a non-working head. Events such as family formation and dissolution, and changes in household Jabour market attachment, were associated with child poverty transitions in the direction expected, and in both countries. However a large fraction of the observed poverty transitions were not accounted for by these events. By contrast, changes in labour earnings not necessarily associated with a job change accounted for a large proportion of poverty transitions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations32
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207