MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7044098459

2025 Update: Introducing the THIAs: Total Haig-Simons U.S. Household Income, Consumption, and Wealth Accounts, 1960–2023

2024· other· en· W7044098459 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Munich University) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityNational Income and Product AccountsQuarter (Canadian coin)Economic inequalityConstruct (python library)National accountsPanel Study of Income DynamicsSet (abstract data type)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the Total Haig-Simons U.S. Household Income Accounts (THIAs), an open-access data set providing balance-sheet-complete measures of income, saving, and wealth accumulation for U.S. households from 1960 to 2023, with prototype distributional estimates for all measures by income quintile since 2000. By integrating NIPA income and saving measures with accrued Holding Gains and Other Volume Changes from the Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts (IMAs), the THIAs construct integrated Haig-Simons income series for use by researchers. Distributional analysis reveals that 86% of Total saving over the past quarter century accrued to the top 20% of households, driven by disproportionate exposure to asset-price appreciation and significantly lower propensities to consume. The data set enables researchers to examine inequality dynamics through a fully integrated income-consumption-wealth lens, addressing researchers’ methodological calls for integrated “3D” national accounts.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.055

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Munich University)Same topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207