MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7082000026 · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107234

Demand for domestic help services: Evidence from a natural experiment

2025· article· en· W7082000026 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Behavior & Organization · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyPrice elasticity of demandElasticity (physics)PurchasingIncome elasticity of demandMarginal utilityConsumption (sociology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate how an increase in subsidies for purchasing domestic help services affects the consumption of individuals who need assistance to live at home. Drawing on administrative data, we analyse the impact of a reform implemented in Quebec (Canada) in 2016, which made the program more generous for a subgroup of beneficiaries. For this purpose, we estimate a difference-in-differences lognormal hurdle model. We derive the corresponding average treatment effect on the treated for this class of non-linear models. Our results suggest that the price elasticity of the demand for subsidized domestic help services for the treated is around 0.74. The elasticity of monthly purchase frequency (0.59) is much larger than the elasticity of monthly purchase intensity (0.14). Based on our results, we determine a floor to the marginal external benefit required for the reform to be socially worth adopting. • We study the price elasticity of the demand for subsidized domestic help services. • We derive the ATT for lognormal hurdle models, and the corresponding estimated elasticity. • Reductions in out-of-pocket costs lead to an increase in the consumption of domestic help services. • The response in terms of the frequency of purchase is four times larger than that in terms of the hours consumed, conditional on consuming any. • Based on a cost–benefit analysis and our results, we determine a floor to the marginal external benefit required for increased subsidies to be socially worth adopting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic Behavior & OrganizationSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207