MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122876715

Micro-level dynamics of social assistance receipt. Evidence from 4 European countries

2015· preprint· en· W3122876715 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sebastian Königs

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges ForskningsrådInstitute for New Economic Thinking
KeywordsReceiptQuarter (Canadian coin)SpellDemographyDemographic economicsGeographySocioeconomicsEconomicsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a study of the monthly dynamics of social assistance benefit receipt - in particular the distribution of spell lengths and the incidence of repeat receipt - in four European countries: Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The analysis is based on four separate administrative panel data sets with long observation periods. Benefit dynamics vary considerably across countries over the eight-year period from January 2001 to December 2008: In the two Nordic countries, short-term benefit receipt is the norm with only around 6% and 11% of spells in Norway and Sweden lasting longer than 12 months. Most recipients however have multiple spells, and the majority of benefit leavers return to benefits within three months of leaving. In Luxembourg and the Netherlands, long-term benefit receipt is frequent, with median spell lengths of 14 and 9 months, respectively, and one-third and one-quarter of all spells lasting 24 months or longer. Benefit leavers in these countries are by contrast much less likely to return to benefit receipt after exit. The total duration of benefit receipt per individual across spells is two to three times as high in the Netherlands and Luxembourg than in Norway and Sweden over the eight-year period.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207