MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Building assets from birth: a global comparison of Child Development Account policies

2008· article· en· W1912519980 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vernon Loke, Michael Sherraden

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Welfare · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset (computer security)Public policyEconomic growthCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Policy developmentKey (lock)EconomicsPublic economicsDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceEconomic policyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asset building is a growing theme in public policy, and building assets from birth in the form of Child Development Accounts is now occurring in several countries. This article provides an overview of the Child Development Account policies in Singapore, Canada, the UK and Korea, and the proposed policy in the USA. The key elements of inclusiveness, progressivity, coherence and integration, and development are explicated and discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations121
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social WelfareSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207