Women’s Relative Resources and Couples’ Gender Balance in Financial Decision-Making
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigate how the relative education and earnings of husbands and wives are associated with self-reported decision-making within the family. Using European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions 2010 data for 27 European countries (n = 72,638), we find that women who earn more than their partner are more likely to report that they alone make the major financial and other important decisions. Men are more likely than women to be reported as financial decision makers if women contribute less than a quarter to joint earnings. However, in line with predictions based on traditional gender display, the association with relative earnings is not linear: among couples in which wives earn almost all of the income, we find that husbands are reported to have more say in financial decision-making than among couples in which both contribute a substantial part of the joint income. This non-linear pattern does not hold similarly for general decision-making. The discrepancy suggests that major financial issues, which were traditionally within the male realm, may be more susceptible to gender display than other family decisions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it