MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3124494418

Can Immigrants Insure against Shocks as well as the Native-born?

2016· preprint· en· W3124494418 on OpenAlexaffabout
Asad Islam, Steven Stillman, Christopher Worswick

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersDepartment of Social Services, Australian GovernmentRheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität BonnAustralian Government
KeywordsImmigrationWelfareShock (circulatory)EconomicsLabour supplyQuarter (Canadian coin)Demographic economicsJob lossLabour economicsPopulationHousehold incomeSuspectSupply shockUnemploymentGeographyEconomic growthPolitical scienceMedicineEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact that an unforeseen event has on household welfare depends on the extent to which household members can take actions to mitigate the direct impact of the shock. In this paper, we use nine years of longitudinal data from the Household Income Labour Dynamics of Australia (HILDA) survey to examine the impact of job displacement and serious health problems on: individual labour supply and incomes, household incomes and food expenditure. We extend on the previous literature by examining whether mitigation strategies and their effectiveness differs for the native-born and immigrants. Immigrants make up nearly one-quarter of the Australian population and there are a number of reasons to suspect that they may be less able to mitigate adverse shocks than the native-born.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→