MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229456221 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v24i2.5146

The Saving Behavior of Heterogeneous Households and Credit Constraints: A Decomposition

2022· article· en· W4229456221 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maryam Aljahani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)Investment (military)Market liquidityEconomicsPrecautionary savingsBusinessMonetary economicsLabour economicsMicroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper sheds light on how saving decisions respond to credit constraints. In this paper, we examine the role credit constraints play in the savings decisions of households by focusing on a well-defined set of reasons for their savings. To do so, we classify the saving motives as precautionary saving, saving to finance investments, and saving for retirement. We find that credit-constrained households are less likely to save for retirement and liquidity, while they are more likely to save for investment purposes. Constrained Black households are more likely to save for in- vestment purposes. Discouraged households are more likely to save for investment and less likely to save for retirement purposes. When households are credit-constrained, they use their savings to smooth their consumption rather than to accumulate wealth over time.

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)0.001
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207