O impacto do Programa Bolsa Família na posse de bens duráveis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of Bolsa Família Program in the possession of durable goodsThis work evaluates the impact of Bolsa Família Program (PBF) on the quantity and quality of the household inventory of durable goods.In order to do so, we used the difference-indifferences estimator combined with propensity score matching to compare the households over time.From the information provided by the AIBF survey about the households that were not part of the PBF in 2005, two comparison groups were created: the treatment group, households that received the benefit in 2009, and the control group, those that were listed in the Cadastro Único at the same period but were not part of the program.The impact variables used were: quantity of durable goods, color television, refrigerator, goods from time saving and time using category.The results show that the granting of the benefit was positive and significant for the quantity of durable goods, not only when analyzing these goods in a grouped way, but also when observing them in isolation.It is also possible to affirm that the increase of durable goods in the homes is supported by the time saving category, indicating that the beneficiary households prioritize durable goods that facilitate the domestic work to those of entertainment/culture.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".