MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135603977

Borrower Experiences on Income-Driven Repayment

2019· article· en· W3135603977 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas S. Conkling, Christa Gibbs

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForbearanceLoanPaymentQuarter (Canadian coin)BusinessPoint (geometry)Juvenile delinquencyCredit cardFinanceEconomicsActuarial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using consumer credit panel data, this Data Point documents which student loan borrowers use income-driven repayment (IDR) and how their delinquencies on student loans and other credit products evolve as they transition onto IDR plans. It finds that many borrowers went into delinquency on their student loans prior to enrolling in IDR, especially as borrowers exited deferment or forbearance periods, but rates of delinquency stabilized or dropped following enrollment. For borrowers with less than full payment relief, delinquencies decreased 19 to 26 percent one year into IDR enrollment relative to the quarter before enrollment. For delinquent student loan borrowers, IDR enrollment was followed by a 17 percent reduction in delinquencies on other credit products, suggesting broader improvements across their entire household budget. However, one in five such borrowers were still behind on their payments on these other credit products one year later, reflecting persistent financial struggles for some borrowers. The report follows borrowers through their first year on IDR and shows how some borrowers continue to pursue lower payments after the first year while others transition back to standard repayment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207