MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AN UPPER BOUND OF THE GINI INDEX IN THE ABSENCE OF MEAN INCOME INFORMATION

2006· article· en· W2098187632 on OpenAlexaff
Tomson Ogwang

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Income and Wealth · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex (typography)EconomicsUpper and lower boundsEconometricsBracketStatisticsValue (mathematics)MathematicsIncome distributionEconomic inequalityInequalityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an upper bound of the Gini index, based on grouped data, is proposed assuming that there is no information on all the group mean incomes as well as the overall mean income but the limits of the income brackets are known. An important advantage of this proposal is that conventional formulas for the upper bound of the Gini index could be applied directly by substituting the (unknown) mean income for each income bracket with the corresponding value that maximizes the grouping correction for that income bracket. The effects of varying the number and size of income brackets are investigated.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Income and WealthSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207