MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative study of government expenditure on social protection in the Visegrád Group and Benelux

2024· article· en· W4394624891 on OpenAlexaff
Marlena Piekut, Jakub Rybaltowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomics & Sociology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup (periodic table)Government (linguistics)Government expenditureBusinessPolitical sciencePublic financeLawChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Socio-economic policies aim to promote equitable income distribution, with social protection playing a crucial role. Balancing equality and efficiency in redistribution poses a challenge for policy-makers. The welfare state-market compatibility dilemma and its impact on incentives are primary concerns. This study evaluates government expenditures on social protection in Benelux and Visegrád Group (V4) countries from 1995 to 2021. Trends in expenditure share indicate varying fiscal policy behaviors: Visegrád Group countries show convergence in expenditure share, while Benelux countries exhibit divergence. The structure of social protection spending also differs, with old age being a dominant category. These findings provide insights into welfare systems and can guide policy decisions in European regions.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomics & SociologySame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207