MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039185352 · doi:10.1086/648184

Interest‐Free Loans between Villagers

2009· article· en· W2039185352 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

VenueEconomic Development and Cultural Change · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanInterest rateEnforcementConsumption (sociology)EconomicsBusinessTerm loanPublic economicsLabour economicsFinanceParticipation loanNon-performing loan

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest‐free loans are a common feature of low‐income rural economies. In much of the economics literature, lending at zero and positive interest are viewed as being highly segmented in the community, with interest‐free loans an essential component of long‐term mutual consumption agreements between households. An alternative interpretation is that zero‐interest loans are a credit contract that, in lieu of interest, includes an option allowing the lender to tax the borrower at a future date. This option can take a variety of forms, including the provision of labor or draft animal services or possibly a future loan. In this paper, we develop and test a model of household contract choice between zero– and positive–interest rate loans that builds on this alternative perspective. It highlights the role of borrower and lender attributes and the economic environment in which they interact in determining contract choice. Enforcement considerations are secondary. We use a unique household‐level data set for rural China for the mid‐1930s to examine key predictions of the model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.139 · 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