MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159669216 · doi:10.1111/manc.12135

Using Panel Data to Estimate Income Under‐Reporting by the Self‐Employed

2015· article· en· W2159669216 on OpenAlex
Bonggeun Kim, John Gibson, Chul Chung

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueManchester School · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMarsden Fund
KeywordsPanel dataEconomicsEconometricsPoint (geometry)Quarter (Canadian coin)MathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self‐employment income is believed to be understated in economic statistics but there is debate about the extent of under‐reporting. This paper refines the widely used method of Pissarides and Weber ( Journal of Public Economics , Vol. 39, No. 1 (1989), pp. 17–32) that relies on discrepancies between food shares and reported incomes. Our panel data approach disentangles under‐reporting from fluctuations in transitory income and gives a point estimate of the under‐reporting rate. Previous studies just give an interval estimate and also make the unlikely assumption that under‐reporting is independent of transitory income fluctuations. Panel data from K orea and R ussia are used to illustrate the method, and suggest that in both countries almost one‐quarter of the income of self‐employed households is not reported.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.369
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.016 · 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