Explaining support for redistribution for different groups of the needy
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore factors which may explain support for redistribution for different groups of the needy in 28 post-communist countries. Design/methodology/approach Using a cross-country survey ( n =25,845), the authors evaluate preferences for redistribution to the elderly, the disabled, families with children, the working poor, and the unemployed. Findings People in post-communist countries made the distinction between deserving groups of the needy – the aged, the disabled, and families with children, and undeserving groups – the unemployed and the working poor. Among the individual-level factors, adherence to equality and attributing poverty to structural problems increased the probability of supporting redistribution. Among country-level factors, the authors’ results stress the positive influence of income inequality on support for redistribution for all groups of the needy under investigation. Notably, the authors did not find a negative influence of the business cycle on support for the working poor and unemployed. Originality/value This is the first paper that examines support for the needy in a diverse sample of 28 post-communist countries. The findings will help policy-makers and social administrators to better understand factors influencing support for redistribution toward different groups of the needy.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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