MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102863692

The financial position of British households: evidence from the 2009 NMG survey

2009· article· en· W2102863692 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tomáš Hellebrandt, Silvia Pezzini, Jumana Saleheen, Richard Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic, financial, and policy analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)Quarter (Canadian coin)DebtRecessionUnemploymentSurvey data collectionEquity (law)BusinessInterest rateHome equityDemographic economicsFinanceEconomicsLabour economicsFinancial systemEconomic growthGeographyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The severe recession of the past year might be expected to have put the financial position of British households under considerable strain. Unemployment has risen significantly, credit conditions have tightened and many homeowners have seen their housing equity eroded. But many borrowers have also benefited significantly from the effects of lower mortgage interest rates. Evidence from the latest survey of households, carried out for the Bank by NMG Financial Services Consulting in late September and early October, shows how these and other changes impacted on households’ budgets and their decisions on whether to spend or save. Despite the weak economic backdrop, a slightly smaller proportion of households reported problems repaying their debts than in the 2008 survey. Partly this was because around half of mortgagors had benefited from lower interest rates. Around a quarter of households had increased or planned to increase saving.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicEconomic, financial, and policy analysisFrench-language works237,207