MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137211869 · doi:10.1177/0020715210368840

Conceptualizing ‘precarious prosperity’: Empirical and theoretical elements for debate

2010· article· en· W2137211869 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mónica Budowski, Robin Tillmann, Wiebke Keim, Michèle Amacker

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsperityConceptualizationPovertySociologyInequalityEmpirical researchDevelopment economicsPositive economicsPopulationQualitative researchScrutinyEconomic growthPolitical scienceSocial scienceEconomicsEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical studies have recently pointed towards a socio-structural category largely overlooked in social inequality research: the dynamic positions of households adjacent to those of the poor and yet not representing those of the established, more prosperous positions in society. These results suggest that the population in this category fluctuates into and out of poverty more often than moving into and out of secure prosperity. This category — still lacking theoretical conceptualization — is characterized by both precariousness and a certain degree of prosperity; despite a restricted and uncertain living standard it holds a range of opportunities for action. We seek analytical elements to conceptualize ‘precarious prosperity’ for comparative empirical research by subjecting various concepts of social inequality research to critical scrutiny. We then operationally define ‘precarious prosperity’ to screen for this population in three countries. Based on qualitative interviews with households in precarious prosperity, we present first analyses of perceptions and household strategies that underline the relevance of the concept in different countries.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207