Bibliographic record
Abstract
commodities, the amount of income we earn and the amount of free time we have left over after working to generate that income. Several time-use researchers and economists have emphasized the importance of free time when considering the quality of a person's life. Bittman & Matheson (1999) emphasized the importance of free time as follows; ‵‵The ability to participate in social life is the product of both access to leisure goods and services, and a sufficient quality of leisure Harvey (1996), a Canadian economist having lead the International Association for Time Use Research, concluded that ‵‵time poor people realize less household production, as the result of their time deficit, have to substitute these`missing' products and services by market products and services. A theoretical economics has examined the maximization of household utility between income preference and leisure time preference. It explains how households turn their income preference to leisure time preference based on the indifference curve. It is theoretically known that households turn their income preferences to leisure time preferences at some level of income. In this paper, we try to find empirically at what income level households change their preferences from income to leisure time. This is clearly different from concerns of such time use [Research Note]
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".