MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799490533 · doi:10.1111/caje.12335

Welfare analysis when people are different

2018· article· en· W2799490533 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Krishna Pendakur

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEquivalence (formal languages)Welfare economicsGensEconomicsEconomic rentPovertyEconometricsInequalityEstimationWelfareConsumption (sociology)MathematicsHumanitiesSociologyMicroeconomicsEconomic growthArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inequality and poverty estimation (indeed, all welfare analysis) must deal with the fact that people are heterogeneous. Equivalence scales and indifference scales are tools that may be used for this. An equivalence scale gives the relative costs faced by different people; an indifference scale gives the relative cost of living for people in different types of households. Equivalence scales and indifference scales can be estimated using off‐the‐shelf household‐level consumer expenditure data and standard econometric techniques for nonlinear equation systems. I offer a short introduction to the identification, estimation and use of equivalence scales and indifference scales and argue that these are complementary tools in the analysis of inequality and poverty. The methods are illustrated with Canadian household expenditure data from the Surveys of Household Spending 2004–2009. Estimated equivalence scales for disability are presented, along with estimated household model parameters and an analysis of consumption poverty. Résumé Analyse du niveau de bien‐être quand les gens sont différents. Les mesures d’inégalité et de pauvreté (en fait toutes les mesures et analyses du niveau de bien‐être) doivent prendre en compte le fait que les gens sont hétérogènes. Les échelles d’équivalence et les échelles d’indifférence sont des outils qu’on peut utiliser pour ce faire. Une échelle d’équivalence établit les coûts relatifs auxquels les différentes personnes doivent faire face; une échelle d’indifférence établit le coût relatif différent de gens qui font partie de différents types de ménages. Les échelles d’équivalence et les échelles d’indifférence peuvent être estimées à l’aide de données sur les dépenses de consommation des ménages pour les produits et services disponibles sur le marché, et des techniques économétriques conventionnelles pour calibrer les systèmes d’équations non‐linéaires. L’auteur présente une courte introduction aux problèmes d’identification, d’estimation, et d’usage des échelles d’équivalence et des échelles d’indifférence, et propose que ce sont des outils complémentaires dans l’analyse de l’inégalité et de la pauvreté. Les méthodes sont illustrées à l’aide de données sur les dépenses des ménages canadiens fournies par les Enquêtes sur les dépenses des ménages 2004‐2009. Les échelles d’équivalence sont estimées pour l’incapacité, ainsi que les paramètres estimés du modèle des ménages et une analyse de la pauvreté en termes de consommation.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.122 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économiqueSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207