MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897974953 · doi:10.1002/sea2.12137

From “good credit” to “bad debt”: Comparative reflections on the student debt experience of young professionals in Santiago, Chile, and Montreal, Canada

2018· article· en· W2897974953 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorena Pérez‐Roa

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Anthropology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico
KeywordsDebtAutonomyStudent loanLoanLegislationSociologyStudent debtPolitical scienceEconomicsFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores how and when student debt is represented as a problem for young people as well as the ways in which the consequences of this indebtedness are handled. This is done through a comparative reflection about the experience of indebtedness felt by several young adults who have university student loan debt in Santiago, Chile, and Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The primary results confirm that the two contexts produce two types of distinct experiences of indebtedness. The young adults in Montreal consider indebtedness to be a problem, so much so that they have internalized the discourse on individual responsibility and financial autonomy promoted by credit agencies and Quebec society. Indebted young adults in Santiago consider their indebtedness to be a problem when they observe that Chilean society is not capable of fulfilling the promise of social mobility through the acquisition of a university degree. While for Montreal debtors, the consequences are internalized and shielded by legislation, the Santiago debtors politicize their demands for a debt solution.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic AnthropologySame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207