Technological Innovation and Inclusive Growth in Germany. Bertelsmann Stiftung Inclusive Growth for Germany|18\n\n\n
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Economic growth in Germany is no longer as inclusive as it\nused to be. Between 1990 and 2010 all measures of income\nand wealth inequality rose considerably,1 which even led the\nmedia to portray Germany as a ‘divided nation’.2 Income\ninequality was relatively low before 1990, and even declined\nover much of the 20th century, but changed direction after\nGerman unification.\nThe rise in income inequality from 1990 onwards is\ndepicted in Figure 1 through various inequality indicators\nand the ‘at-risk-of-poverty rate’. It can be seen that\nall measures of income inequality (before and after tax)\nincreased markedly after 1990 along with the ‘at-risk-ofpoverty\nrate’.3 Felbermayr et al. (2014) furthermore document\nthat the rise in wage inequality was faster in Germany\nthan in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada\nbetween the mid-1990s and 2010. This rise in income\nand wage inequality has been accompanied, and to a certain\nextent occasioned, by a simultaneous increase in wealth\ninequality. Using data from the Socio-Economic Panel\n(SOEP), Frick and Grabka (2009) show, that the Gini coefficient\nfor wealth increased from 0.77 to 0.80 during this\nperiod, and wealth grew particularly strongly at the top 1\npercent of the wealth distribution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".