MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200015418 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v23i5.4574

The Prevalence and Demography of Insufficient Earnings

2021· article· en· W4200015418 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dennis H. Sullivan, Andrea L. Ziegert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsPovertyWageImmigrationDemographic economicsEducational attainmentMetropolitan areaMarital statusSocial securityDemographyEconomicsEthnic groupFull-timeLabour economicsPopulationGeographyPolitical scienceSociologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research measures the prevalence and demography of full-year full-time workers whose earnings in 2018 or 2019 were insufficient to exceed the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) poverty thresholds. Earnings sufficiency is then recalculated by subtracting the FICA taxes (Social Security and Medicare), adding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and subtracting work expenses to generate a measure of “expendable earnings.” This recalculation changes the prevalence of earnings insufficiency more for some demographic groups than others. The demographic breakdown examines racial/ethnic groups, separates immigrant workers from the native born, divides gender groups by marital status and the presence of children and examines three age groups, four educational attainment groups, and three groups divided by metropolitan status. The wage rates of workers with insufficient earnings are assigned to wage bins tailored to current debates about minimum wages, finding that almost 25% of full-year full-time workers with insufficient expendable earnings have wages that exceed $15 per hour, and that allocations into wage bins differ substantially among demographic groups.

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)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207