MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2636275679

Digital Divide and Income Inequality: A Spatial Analysis

2017· article· en· W2636275679 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chun‐Hung A. Lin, Ho-Shan Lin, Ching-Po Hsu

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic inequalityIncome distributionEconomicsIncome inequality metricsInequalitySpillover effectDemographic economicsDistribution (mathematics)Quantile regressionComprehensive incomeTotal personal incomeEstimationEconometricsGross incomePublic economicsMacroeconomicsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A spatial quantile regression model, which can fully describe the distribution characteristics and spillover effects, is applied to explore the effect of digital divide on the income inequality. Firstly, the estimation results based on the full data set reveal that income inequality is positively spatial dependent across regions, and the Internet has a significantly positive effect on income inequality. Secondly, the entire data set is divided into two groups based on income, i.e., high income countries and low income countries. The estimation results of two groups are quite different. The income inequality were positively spatially correlated among neighbouring countries in high-income countries but negatively in low-income countries. On the other hand, the Internet usage exacerbate income disparity in low-income countries but improve income inequality in high-income countries. The results also show that increasing school enrollment can alleviate income gap especially in low-income 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economics and FinanceSame topicSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207