MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993662285 · doi:10.1017/9780511808302.004

An Overview of Economic and Social Opportunities and Disadvantage in European Households

2004· book-chapter· en· W2993662285 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Nolan, Bertrand Maître

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantageSocioeconomic statusEuropean unionPosition (finance)Perspective (graphical)Human capitalPolitical scienceEconomic growthDemographic economicsDevelopment economicsEconomicsSociologyInternational tradePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The socioeconomic position one Starts from in life is a key determinant of life chances, as consistently shown by a vast research literature across different disciplines and relating to various industrialized societies. However, that socioeconomic starting point is a far from perfect predictor of outcomes - some people do better, and some worse, from what look to be similar starting points. Furthermore, the price paid by those who do poorly can itself be very different in different societies. So there is much to be learned from the way different societies seek to promote healthy development and minimize the price of failure. The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of socioeconomic disadvantage versus opportunity in Europe. It is focused in particular on human capital and its relationship to opportunities and disadvantage for individuals and households over the life course. It both draws on recent research and investigates an exciting new source of comparative data, the European Community Household Panel survey (ECHP). This allows an in-depth examination of the countries currently in the European Union (EU), which we put in perspective where possible by drawing on information about a number of countries soon to join the Union, and about Canada and the United States.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicRegional Development and PolicyFrench-language works237,207