MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385233634 · doi:10.1002/ijfe.2859

Consumer bankruptcy: Decision, choice and access to credit afterwards

2023· article· en· W4385233634 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Atilla Gumus, Alper Kara, Ahmad Hassan Ahmad, Karligash Glass

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Finance & Economics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityLoughborough UniversityBritish Academy of ManagementNottingham Trent University
KeywordsBankruptcyDebtFresh StartEconomicsProbit modelOrdered probitActuarial scienceDemographic economicsBusinessFinanceEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine the effects of the bankruptcy benefit and adverse events on the consumer bankruptcy decision. Employing zero‐inflated ordered probit models and a unique longitudinal survey of approximately 66,000 individuals in Great Britain, we find that consumers are more likely to enter into bankruptcy proceedings when the bankruptcy benefit increases and when they become unemployed. We find that the effects of adverse events differ across bankruptcy types. Individuals who experience the onset of health problems are more likely to choose reorganization of debts (i.e., income gleaning), whereas individuals who get divorced or separated are more likely to prefer the discharge of debts (i.e., fresh start). We also examine access to credit after bankruptcy. We find that individuals are excluded from the credit markets post‐bankruptcy and the impact differs across bankruptcy types. Credit exclusion for fresh starters is dramatic, swift but short‐lived, while for income gleaners, it is gradual, slow but lasts longer.

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)0.007
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Finance & EconomicsSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207