MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924315192 · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12522

Repeated payment delinquency among young adults in the United States

2019· article· en· W2924315192 on OpenAlexaff
Jodi Letkiewicz, Stuart J. Heckman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Consumer Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenile delinquencyConscientiousnessPaymentProbitOrdered probitDemographic economicsPsychologyNational Longitudinal SurveysDemographyEconomicsActuarial scienceBig Five personality traitsPersonalityEconometricsSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyFinanceExtraversion and introversion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is concern in the United States about young adults falling behind financially due to the increased use of student loans and low wages. This study investigates payment delinquency as a measure of financial distress to better understand how young adults might be struggling. Personality traits are incorporated into the model to determine the extent to which behavioural factors are correlated with financial behaviors and if they predict a habit trend of payment delinquency. The 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a nationally representative longitudinal data set, is used in the study. A random effects probit model and a dynamic random effects probit model are used to examine late bill pay (harassed by bill collectors) and late rent or mortgage payments (more than 60 days late) over a period of 8 years (2007–2015). Results from the analysis indicate that payment delinquency in a previous period increases the likelihood of payment delinquency by 10 percentage points in a subsequent period. Conscientiousness decreases the likelihood by 2.1 percentage points, while neuroticism increases the likelihood by 1.6 percentage points.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Consumer StudiesSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207