MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Memoryless Property of the Income Distribution as an Indication for Testing the Equality of Opportunity: Evidence from China (1978-2015)

2023· preprint· en· W4324317506 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yong Tao

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSouthwest University
KeywordsStylized factDistribution (mathematics)Income distributionEconomicsEarningsChinaUnearned incomeExponential distributionPareto distributionPareto principleEconometricsLabour economicsPublic economicsInequalityGross incomeMacroeconomicsMathematicsFinancePolitical scienceStatisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been well known that the exponential distribution is the only continuous distribution that has the memoryless property. Here, we observe that, if the exponential distribution dominates an economy as a probability distribution of income acquisition, then the memoryless property imposes equal opportunities on agents in this economy to acquire earnings. Based on this observation, we propose to identify the emergence of an exponential income distribution as a potential necessary condition for guaranteeing the equality of opportunity. Together with other conditions (such as social and economic mobility), it would promote equal opportunities for income acquisition among citizens. Empirically, we employ the latest data available from four representative market-economy countries (the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and China) to demonstrate that the exponential distribution is a stylized feature of the income structure of the low- and middle-income class, which occupies the great majority of populations. By contrast, the top income classes in these countries obey the Pareto distribution. To validate the relationship between exponential distribution and equal opportunity, we empirically show how the income structure of the low- and middle-income class in China (from 1978 to 2015) evolved towards an exponential distribution after the market-oriented economic reformation.

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)0.006
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.439
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.009 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207