MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1841161136 · doi:10.1787/5js4t78q9lq7-en

How Should One Measure Economic Insecurity?

2015· report· en· W1841161136 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

VenueOECD statistics working papers · 2015
Typereport
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationUnemploymentMeasure (data warehouse)HazardMoral hazardEconomicsPolitical scienceActuarial sciencePublic economicsEconomic growthComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People feel economically insecure when they perceive a significant hazard or danger looming in the future, which they are unable to insure against, avoid or ignore. While all OECD countries devote significant resources to mitigate economic insecurity, no consensus exists on the best way to measure it. The paper reviews the pros and cons of the main approaches proposed by the literature and identifies a number of criteria than an ideal measure of economic insecurity should satisfy. It advocates the construction of household level sub-indices for the hazards identified in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (i.e. unemployment, illness, widowhood, disability and old age) and their aggregation to an over-all summary measure of economic insecurity, discussing what could be done with existing data and what additional information should be collected.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.143 · 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