Evaluation Using Random Assignment Experiments: Demonstrating the Effectiveness of Earnings Supplements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The UK is preparing to start one of the largest random assignment evaluations of a new social policy that has ever been undertaken in Europe or North America. This juncture is a useful time to examine the merits of random assignment evaluation using new results from one-of the most widely cited experimental evaluations the Self-Sufficiency Project in Canada. Random assignment experiments are the most reliable approach to measure the impacts of changes in social policy. However, they are often expensive and cannot answer all relevant research questions. The Canadian Self-Sufficiency Project demonstrates these qualities. It showed that the provision of earnings supplements to lone parents who leave welfare for full-time work can increase employment and earnings and decrease welfare receipt. The high quality of research provides credible evidence that the large, initial programme expenditure can mostly be recovered through reduced welfare payments and higher taxes.
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 | 0.162 | 0.333 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".