MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942954432 · doi:10.3386/w24830

Financial Incentives and Earnings of Disability Insurance Recipients: Evidence from a Notch Design

2018· report· en· W2942954432 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Ruh, Stefan Staubli

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2018
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on OrganizationsUniversity of CalgaryHEC Montréal
FundersAustrian Science FundAustralian GovernmentNational Institute on AgingU.S. Social Security Administration
KeywordsEarningsIncentiveDisability insuranceEconomicsLiabilityEarnings response coefficientBusinessLabour economicsFinanceMicroeconomicsSocial security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most countries reduce Disability Insurance (DI) benefits for beneficiaries earning above a specified threshold.Such an earnings threshold generates a discontinuous increase in tax liability -a notch-and creates an incentive to keep earnings below the threshold.Exploiting such a notch in Austria, we provide transparent and credible identification of the effect of financial incentives on DI beneficiaries' earnings.Using rich administrative data, we document large and sharp bunching at the earnings threshold.However, the elasticity driving these responses is small.Our estimate suggests that relaxing the earnings threshold reduces fiscal cost only if program entry is very inelastic.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.726
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.123 · 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207