MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097108404 · doi:10.1002/jae.1039

Public insurance and private savings: who is affected and by how much?

2008· article· en· W2097108404 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

VenueJournal of Applied Econometrics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicaidQuantile regressionEconomicsIncentiveAsset (computer security)Net worthPovertyDemographic economicsInstrumental variableLabour economicsEconometricsMicroeconomicsFinanceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper employs a recently developed instrumental quantile regression method to investigate the effect of Medicaid on household savings across different wealth groups. It finds that the disincentive effect of Medicaid on household savings is heavily concentrated in the middle net‐worth households. In contrast, the effects on the bottom and top net‐worth households are quite small and insignificant. These heterogeneous incentive effects are partly explained by Medicaid asset tests. Our findings hold regardless of whether affluence is measured in terms of wealth or income. They suggest that despite generating substantial crowd‐out for the mean household, Medicaid expansions are unlikely to discourage the savings of the poorest households. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.158 · 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