The association between poverty indicators and material hardship in South Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The construct of material hardship has been introduced to broaden the understanding of living conditions beyond household income. However, much remains unclear about how much variation in material hardship can be explained by income and other economic indicators such as asset holdings. To get advance knowledge on these related but distinct relationships, using the Korean Welfare Panel Study we tested the association between material hardship and three poverty indicators (joint income‐asset, asset‐only, and income‐only). For income poverty and asset poverty, we found a statistically significant association between a household’s poverty condition and material hardship. The joint income‐asset poor were most likely to experience hardship (with respect to food, utility, and health). In addition, householders who rented rather than owned their own home, and householders whose heads were younger, single, less‐educated, and only temporarily employed suffered more hardship than their counterparts. Future longitudinal research that identifies the casual relationships between poverty and hardship is needed. Key Practitioner Message: •Considering only overall hardship may mask within‐group differences in living conditions; thus, practitioners may gain greater insight into client populations by assessing various types of hardships such as food, utility, and health; •Because the asset‐only poor suffer from hardship despite their above‐poverty‐level income, the asset poverty‐related programs should be more responsive to the problems of the asset poor; •Based on our findings showing that the income‐only poor, especially the relatively older age group, suffers from difficulties in cash flow despite their high homeownership rate, policies are needed to help older homeowners leverage their home equity or other real estate to alleviate their financial difficulties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".