MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gender Differences in Debt Repayment Problems after Divorce

2006· article· en· W1964894171 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

VenueJournal of Consumer Affairs · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsRead Jones Christoffersen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlimonyAffect (linguistics)DebtPaymentEconomicsPanel Study of Income DynamicsWelfareDemographic economicsMarital statusHousehold debtChild supportLabour economicsPsychologyDemographyFinancePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have shown that a growing number of divorced women were experiencing debt repayment problems during the 1980s. This study uses data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to (1) examine how debt repayment problems differ by marital status and gender and (2) investigate the role that supplemental income payments play in helping to mitigate repayment problems. The results show that divorced men and women are more likely to default on their debt obligations than married households. Further analysis reveals that increases in welfare payments significantly decrease the likelihood of default for divorced women but do not affect the probability of default for divorced men and married households. There is no evidence that payments related to child support and alimony affect default rates. The findings suggest that welfare benefits may help to mitigate the economic consequences of divorce for women.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.194 · 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