Household wealth in Italy and in advanced countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper studies the long-term evolution of household wealth in order to compare the changes in Italian financial wealth and real wealth with those of the most advanced countries. In Italy households� real wealth is 5.5 times disposable income, while housing wealth is 4.6 times, and financial wealth is 3.8 times disposable income. Therefore total gross wealth is around 9.3 times disposable income. Given that household liabilities make up 80 per cent of disposable income, total net wealth is 8.5 times income. In France and Spain household non-financial wealth also exceeds that of financial assets, while the contrary holds in the United States and in Germany. In Italy the ratio of gross financial wealth to disposable income is in line with that in France, greater than in Spain and Germany, and smaller than in the USA, Japan, the UK, and Canada. With the exception of Germany and Japan, changes in financial assets are mainly due to price changes in financial instruments � holding gains or losses � rather than to financial transactions. In the last two decades the financial portfolio of Italian households has become more similar to the average portfolio of the advanced economies. Italian household debt is the lowest by international comparison.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".