MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986356669 · doi:10.1142/s1084946705000173

POVERTY AMONG SELF-EMPLOYED BUSINESSPEOPLE IN A RICH COUNTRY: A MISUNDERSTOOD AND DISTINCT REALITY

2005· article· en· W1986356669 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Johan Lambrecht, Ellen Beens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Developmental Entrepreneurship · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertySelf employedSelf-employmentPoor peopleQuarter (Canadian coin)Demographic economicsDistribution (mathematics)Falling (accident)Poverty levelEconomicsEconomic growthPsychologyEntrepreneurshipGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article studies poverty among self-employed businesspeople in a rich country, Belgium. Existing research on self-employment income, compared with income of employees, has made clear that self-employed have a higher probability of falling in the lowest income groups and that there is a distinct self-employment effect. Our findings for Belgium show that approximately one quarter of those who are self-employed in their main occupation are living below the poverty line. We also confirm findings reported in the literature that income distribution among self-employed people is very unequal. It appears from our qualitative findings that poverty among self-employed businesspeople is something distinct from other forms of poverty. Several factors can cause self-employed businesspeople to end up in poverty. As a result, poverty is a multifaceted problem. Policy recommendations are formulated to prevent and combat poverty among self-employed businesspeople.

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)0.003
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Developmental EntrepreneurshipSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207