Socio-economic Condition of Child Worker of Bangladesh in Their Adulthood: An Econometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study has mainly focused on the current socio-economic condition of those people who were child labor in their childhood. In this study, economic indicators are income and employment status. On the other hand, level of education, health status and role in case of decision making in the society are studied as social indicators. According to this study, socio-economic condition of child workers in their adulthood is not very satisfactory. In this research work, we have used Linear Probability Model (LPM) and Weighted Least Square (WLS) regression analysis to make comparison of current socio-economic status between people who were child labor in their childhood and those who were not child worker in past. We have found that person who was not child worker in early stage of his/her life have higher probability to enjoy better socio-economic condition than that of person who worked as child worker in past. In fact, we have identified that a children who is working as a child worker has 0.61 or 61% probability to have low standard of living in his/her future life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".