MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049339300 · doi:10.1111/1467-9361.00194

The Labor Market as a Smoothing Device: Labor Supply Responses to Crop Loss

2003· article· en· W2049339300 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

VenueReview of Development Economics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob lossConsumption (sociology)Shock (circulatory)EconomicsCrop lossLabour economicsHousehold incomeCropWork (physics)AgricultureConsumption smoothingNonfarm payrollsAgricultural economicsBusinessUnemploymentEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper studies the way in which labor supply responses enable households to smooth consumption in the face of crop loss. The 1993 Indonesian Family Life Survey is unusual because it contains self‐reported information on crop loss and on household responses to crop loss. Of those households that report a crop loss, 41.6% also report that they responded by taking an extra job. Using these self‐reported measures, the authors find evidence which suggests that the income associated with this shock‐induced labor supply is important in allowing the household to avoid reducing consumption expenditure. Household members, however, do not seem to increase their total hours of work. They appear to just reallocate their time from household farming to other labor market activities.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · 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