Differences in the Destination of Savings According to Gender, and Its Economic Rights Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main problem this article addresses is that women are more vulnerable than men in economic terms. The aim of this research is to identify the differences in the destination of savings according to gender and its implications related to their economic rights. Chi-Square tests were performed to test for the existence of statistically significant differences in the destination of men’s and women’s savings, based on the National Survey on the Destination of Savings in Mexico (ENIF). The hypothesis to be tested is that there is a gender difference in the way in which the destination of savings is allocated. As a result, it is possible to see that women focus their savings on issues related to health and education at home, in contrast to men, who tend to protect their own economic future by focusing their savings on remodeling or buying real estate or starting or expanding a business. In this sense, the hypothesis is partially verified in 4 of the 8 savings destinations. This article is motivated by the desire to identify this possible economic gap between genders, considering that it is an issue that affects the economic and personal future of women.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".