MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148771290

'Inequality is the Root of Social Evil,' or Maybe Not? Two Stories About Inequality and Public Policy

2017· article· en· W3148771290 on OpenAlexaffabout
Miles Corak

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Issues and Policies
Canadian institutionsStatistics CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityWorryPerspective (graphical)Economic inequalityPublic policySocial inequalityIncome distributionEarningsIncome inequality metricsOrder (exchange)Social policyPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsLawPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Income inequality is on the rise, and everyone, from President Obama and Pope Francis to Prince Charles and Standard & Poor's, is talking about it. But these conversations about what are arguably the most significant changes in the distribution of incomes and earnings since the 1940s are leading to very different views on how public policy should respond. This is as true in Canada as it is in almost all of the other rich countries where inequality has risen. In this paper I tell two stories about inequality – one from the perspective of those who feel it is not a problem worth the worry, and the other from the perspective of those who see it as "the defining challenge of our time" – in order to clarify the issues facing Canadians, and what public policy should do about them.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0250.076
Scholarly communication0.0170.011
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0070.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicSocial Issues and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207