MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032621309 · doi:10.1177/0022185610397138

What Role do Safety Net Wage Adjustments Play in Alleviating Household Need?

2011· article· en· W2032621309 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Healy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Industrial Relations · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafety netMinimum wageDistribution (mathematics)Net incomeWageCommissionDemographic economicsLabour economicsBusinessStandard of livingEconomicsHousehold incomeFinanceGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The strength of the relationship between low wages and household needs has become an important measure of the effectiveness of Australia’s employment safety net. This paper reviews the recent treatment of the needs issue in safety net wage cases of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and provides a statistical analysis of data from two nationwide household surveys. I develop a method of identifying low-wage earners in sectors with high award reliance, and use it to describe the characteristics of their households. The workers of interest are predominantly found in households near the middle of the income distribution, rather than at the bottom end, because they typically live with other, higher-paid workers. The minority living in single-income households are more likely to be below the median income and to experience financial stress. A safety net maintained partly on the basis of a ‘needs’ criterion should be especially focused on the circumstances and prospects of this single-income group.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.370
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

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Industrial RelationsSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207