Conceptualizing ‘precarious prosperity’: Empirical and theoretical elements for debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.146 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".