Private asset income in France: Is there a breakdown of intergenerational equity between 1979 and 2011?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use the National Transfer Accounts methodology to calculate private asset income by age for the years 1979–2011. We analyze age profiles using three indicators of intergenerational equity. Monetary asset income shows no evidence of generational breaks to the benefit of the baby-boom generation. On the contrary, baby-boomers suffered from the high interest rates that they paid to become homeowners. Imputed rents show an obvious breakdown of intergenerational equity when we use an inter-age and intergenerational indicator. This indicator compares the per capita asset income at a given age with the average asset income of people aged 18–85. It gives the relative situation of one age group compared to its contemporaries and it also gives the relative situation of one generation when we compare birth cohorts over time. We find that the cohort born in 1950 benefited from a better position than their successors. Moreover, the cohorts born before the war and during the war appear to be even more favored than the baby-boomers. The cohorts born in 1930 and in 1940 have a better situation than the previous generations and a better position than the following generations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".