Representative time use data and new harmonised calibration of the American Heritage Time Use Data (AHTUD) 1965-1999
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Representative and reliable individual time use data, in connection with a proper set of socio-economic background variables, are essential elements for the empirical foundation and evaluation of existing and new theories in general and in particular for time use analyses.Within the international project Assessing Time Use Survey Datasets several potentially useful individual US time use heritage datasets have been identified for use in developing an historical series of non-market accounts.In order to evaluate the series of American Heritage Time Use Data (AHTUD) (1965, 1975, 1985, this paper analyses the representativeness of this data when using given weights and provides a new harmonised calibration of the AHTUD for sound time use analyses.Our calibration procedure with its ADJUST program package is theoretically founded on information theory, consistent with a simultaneous weighting including hierarchical data, ensures desired positive weights, and is well-suited and available for any time use data calibration of interest.We present the calibration approach and provide new harmonised weights for all AHTUD surveys based on a substantially driven calibration framework.To illustrate the various application possibilities of a calibration, we finally disentangle demographic vs. time use behavioural changes and developments by re-calibrating all five AHTUD surveys using 1965 population totals as a benchmark.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it