MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889742156 · doi:10.26190/unsworks/28443

Poverty in Australia 2022: A snapshot

2022· report· en· W6889742156 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) · 2022
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyRecessionQuarter (Canadian coin)Economic inequalityPoverty thresholdHousehold incomeGovernment (linguistics)Unemployment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report provides a brief overview of levels of poverty - overall and among adults and children – following the recent release of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data on household incomes in 2019-20. It examines trends in poverty since 1999, and through each quarter of 2019-20. While it is unusual to measure changes in poverty on a three-monthly rather than annual basis, it was a very unusual year. In the second quarter of 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns triggered a sharp recession and the government introduced unprecedented public income supports to keep household and business incomes afloat. As we argued in a previous Poverty and Inequality Report released in 2021, these two factors worked in opposite directions: the recession and widespread job losses increased poverty while the COVID income supports reduced it. This report reveals the overall impact of the pandemic recession and temporary increase to income support on poverty (noting that the COVID income supports introduced in the June quarter of 2020 were later withdrawn). As with previous publications in our Poverty and Inequality in Australia series, this report will be followed by a more detailed examination of poverty levels among different groups in the community and their likely causes.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia)French-language works237,207