Diminishing Prospects for Young People: A Comparison of the Intergenerational Fairness Index and Generational Divide Index in Addressing the Problem
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
This paper focuses on the origins of the generational divide, namely, the unsustainability of national policies that have disproportionately benefitted the older generations to the detriment of younger generations. Much of southern Europe remains mired by unacceptably high rates of youth unemployment, which leaves an indelible scar on young people, poses economic problems for future generations, and threatens the European economies competitiveness. This paper outlines and compares the objectives, methodologies and results of two cutting-edge approaches in identifying the extent of these generational imbalances, namely: the Intergenerational Foundation’s Intergeneration Fairness Index (IFI) and the Bruno Visentini Foundation’s Generational Divide Index (GDI). The findings outline the differing objectives and methodologies of these respective approaches. Although both instruments arrive at broadly similar conclusions, (i.e. young people’s diminishing prospects over time) there are palpable differences in the results. This is attributable to IFI and GDI’s different aims and objectives: IFI is mainly helpful for country comparisons and GDI for fixing country-specific targets.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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