Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns3:p><p><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial Narrow&quot;,sans-serif">The article presents estimates of the social minimum (SM) level for the third quarter of 2025. In the social minimum model, the scope and level of satisfied needs should allow for the reproduction of vital forces, having and raising children, and maintaining social ties. The values of this category offer analytical and cognitive functions. Central Statistical Office (GUS) utilizes social minimum values to estimate the risk of scarcity (or privation). Furthermore, social minimum values serve as a point of reference for public institutions (e.g., the judiciary, tax offices, higher education) and private entities (e.g., banks, NGOs).</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial Narrow&quot;,sans-serif">Compared to the third quarter of 2024, the new social minimum values increased from 4.3% (in a household of parents with one child) to 5.1% (in a single-person employee household). These changes exceeded the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which stood at 3.0%. However, in comparison with the values from the second quarter of 2025, the growth of the social minimum was marginal, ranging from 0.1% (a household of parents with three children) to 1.0% (a single-person employee household), with the CPI indicating stagnation (0.3%).</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial Narrow&quot;,sans-serif">The low growth of the social minimum during the analysed period was primarily driven by the low valuation of food products. Food expenditures fell by 2.4% in most households, while the CPI indicated a decrease of only 0.5%. This is a typical phenomenon for this period, resulting from autumn price reductions. During this time, basket expenditures on housing and energy carriers increased from 1.5% (in five-person households) to 2.7% (in single-person households), with the CPI at 1.0%.</span></span></span></span></p></ns3:p>
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it