MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230290890 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/78yhf

Dynamics of Asset Poverty in South Korea

2017· preprint· en· W4230290890 on OpenAlexaff
Soyoon Weon, David W. Rothwell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicKorean Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityThe Wilson Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyAsset (computer security)Diversification (marketing strategy)Panel dataEconomicsWelfarePortfolioDemographic economicsDevelopment economicsEconomic growthBusinessFinanceEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, Korea has suffered what many consider to be a severe poverty problem. Despite policy efforts to reduce poverty and economic recovery in the early 2000s, poverty affects many households and certain households are at risk of staying in poverty once they are in it. Using longitudinal panel data from 2005 to 2014, this study defines three indicators of poverty based on asset holdings, rather than income. It then examines the dynamics of asset poverty in Korea across the study period. The study’s primary goal is to reveal differences across the three indicators and identify which groups of poor people in Korea have been structurally trapped in poverty. We applied a dynamic panel model of discrete choice to the Korean Welfare Panel Study (KOWEPS) from the 1st to 10th waves and show that, despite the indicator, the asset poor who experienced asset poverty in the previous surveyed year or at wave 1 are likely to fall into structural and persistent poverty over time. In addition, the probability of incurring asset poverty decreased with home ownership, higher disposable income, and greater diversification of the household portfolio. Future research should study the duration of asset poverty to complete a comprehensive picture of the asset poverty condition.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKorean Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207