MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594619958 · doi:10.17975/sfj-2016-005

Diving into Debt: A Study on Factors Related to Debt Risk Score in Toronto

2016· article· en· W2594619958 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anupya Pamidimukkala, Dong Fei, Jessica Ip, Pamela Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueSTEM Fellowship Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsEarl Haig Secondary School
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebtDebt-to-GDP ratioDebt levels and flowsBusinessActuarial scienceDemographic economicsFinanceInternal debtEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to find the correlations between data found regarding debt risk and the 140 neighbourhoods in Toronto, Ontario. Debt risk was compared with select variables from available data, including education, health, environment, housing, economics, demographics, transportation, recreation, and safety. The purpose of this study was to help civilians and the government identify possible factors that lead to higher debt risk, as well as find solutions to reduce it. The data was retrieved from Open Data Toronto. A simple linear regression model was built to determine the factors that have a seemingly great correlation with debt risk. It was concluded that the percentage of people who receive social assistance, the percentage of people who applied for rent banks, and the number of reported sexual assaults in a neighbourhood had a positive correlation with increased debt risk. The result is that an age-adjusted rate of people who received breast cancer screening had a negative correlation with increased debt risk. Through the results, several solutions could be proposed to reduce debt risk. More education on safety and health can enable citizens to become more responsible and aware of their financial state. Giving other forms of aid that are not monetary may be beneficial in helping people get out of debt and become more financially independent.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSTEM Fellowship JournalSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207