MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W282567466

Does Population Matter in Accessing Inequality in China1/EST-CE QUE LA POPULATION IMPORTE DANS L'INEGALITE DE L'ACCES ?

2007· article· fr· W282567466 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiu-Li Yang, Yang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityPopulationHumanitiesPolitical scienceWelfare economicsSociologyEconomicsDemographyMathematicsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In accessing inequality all over the world, recent research by Fischer has found an interesting result: without regard to population size, incomes in poor countries grew slower than incomes in rich countries, implying that the poor are falling behind and that cross-country inequality is getting worse. However a population weighted analysis indicates that the poor are growing faster, which implies both catch-up and narrowing inequality. An attempt is made in this paper to examine whether the same pattern of inequality applies to the case of provincial comparison in China. Our finding shows, even after taking into consideration of population and using the improved accessing method, we find no evidence of less inequality across all the people. Key words: inequality, population weighted, convergence, divergence Resume: Sur l'inegalite de l'acces dans le monde entier, les recherches recentes effectuees par Fischer ont trouve un resultat interessant : sans relation avec la taille de la population, les revenus dans les pays pauvres croissent plus lentement que dans les pays riches, cela implique que les pauvres sont en retard et que l'inegalite transnationale devient de plus en plus grave. Neanmoins, une analyse qui met l'accent sur la population montre que les pauvres augmentent plus rapidement, qui implique le rattrapage et l'inegalite diminue. L'article present tente d'examiner si le meme modele d'inegalite est applicable a la comparaison provinciale en Chine. Les resultats montrent que, meme en mettant en consideration la population et en utilisant la methode d'acces amelioree, on n'a pas trouve la preuve d'une inegalite decrue a travers toute la population. Mots-Cles: inegalite, population qui importe, convergence, divergence 1. INTRODUCTION Economic inequality has always been one of the most popular discussion topics in development economics. This is particularly true when the previously neglected field of development economics was rediscovered in the 1950s and 1960s (Ranis, 2004). Recently, many studies have been constantly focusing on the economic inequality in the world (Sala-i-Martin, 2002; Pritchett, 1997), especially the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the world's most populous country, namely China (Yang, 1999; Wei, 2001; Wei, 2002; Gustafsson and Li, 2002). Last decade has seen plenty of literatures addressing the issue of regional disparity and income inequality in China. One question concerning the base of comparison remains to be clarified. Which matters more? Whether inequality is widening among provinces, or whether inequality is widening among all the people of the whole nation, regardless of which province they happen to live in? If the latter question turned out to be of more relevance, i.e., measuring across all the nation's individuals, then population becomes an important factor. Hence when looking at regional disparity across provinces, an attempt is made in this paper to examine the tendency towards convergence in real per capita income among the provinces in China during the period 1990-2003 and to analyze the population-weighted inequality among these provinces. The group of poor provinces accounting for a big share of all the poor people in the country will be investigated with particular attention so as to find out how they affect the inequality among all the people. 2. LITERATUR EREVIEW In examining economic inequality around the world, Stanley Fischer, former deputey chief of the International Monetary Fund, to the American Economic Association, propounded three important steps which are deemed necessary (Fisher, 2003). The first two steps are to show whether the within-country income inequality and the cross-country income inequality are widening. The third one is to show whether the overall income inequality is widening globally. Presumably, inequality measured across countries is widening, or the gap between average incomes in the richest countries and average income in the poorest countries is growing. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207