<b>Work for Passion or Money? Variations in Artists’ Labor Supply</b>
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper assesses the relative impact of work for money or work for passion on Norwegian artists by examining artists’ labor supply. Our contribution is twofold. The first is to test the work‐preference model and the second is to investigate the impact of arts grants on artists’ labor supply. The empirical specification draws two distinctions: between arts and non‐arts income and between labor and non‐labor income. Non‐labor income is divided into three different sources: (1) spouse's income, (2) income from financial assets and social benefits, and (3) arts grants and subsidies. Our contribution adds to the literature by estimating the significance of these various income sources on the time allocated to arts work, non‐arts work, and leisure. The results provide convincing evidence for the work‐preference model, and ad hoc evidence shows that art grants have a significant positive effect on the supply of arts hours. This finding supports arts policy and shows the impact of art grants on artists’ motivation to work on their arts. The causality of wages on supply is demonstrated by estimating the effects of wage shocks (grants) on arts labor supply using fixed‐effect and difference‐in‐difference methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it