MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2543119040 · doi:10.1410/84064

Household Budget Studies in the British Dominions, 1873-1939

2016· article· en· W2543119040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Evan Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueRivista di storia economica · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrodata (statistics)GeographyDemographic economicsEconomicsDemographySociologyCensus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Household budget studies in the autonomous British dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa) were carried out sporadically before World War II. The similar history of household budget studies in the dominions reflects the similarity of the dominions' statistical infrastructure and the existence of other data sources that reduced the need to collect household budget studies. The budget studies that were conducted were influenced by the statistical school, and were similar in quality to contemporary European and American surveys. Statistical summaries of results are available, but only limited microdata survives in archives or publications.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRivista di storia economicaSame topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207