MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3166799158 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/4urcm

Wage-Setting Policies, Employment, and Food Insecurity: A Multilevel Analysis of 492 078 People in 139 Countries

2021· article· en· W3166799158 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Reeves, Rachel Loopstra, Valerie Tarasuk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood insecurityWageEconomicsCollective bargainingMultilevel modelDemographic economicsLabour economicsFood securityGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. To examine the association between wage-setting policy and food insecurity.Methods. We estimated multilevel regression models, using data from the Gallup World Poll (2014–2017) and UCLA’s World Policy Analysis Center, to examine the association between wage setting policy and food insecurity across 139 countries (n = 492 078).Results. Compared with countries with little or no minimum wage, the probability of being food insecure was 0.10 lower (95% confidence interval = 0.02, 0.18) in countries with collective bargaining. However, these associations varied across employment status. More generous wage-setting policies (e.g., collective bargaining or high minimum wages) were associated with lower food insecurity among full-time workers (and, to some extent, part-time workers) but not those who were unemployed.Conclusions. In countries with generous wage-setting policies, employed adults had a lower risk of food insecurity, but the risk of food insecurity for the unemployed was unchanged. Wage-setting policies may be an important intervention for addressing risks of food insecurity among low-income workers.

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)0.003
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.342 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→