Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2014 359 Toward Healthy Balance Sheets: Are Savings Accounts a Gateway to Young Adults’ Asset Diversification and Accumulation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Y oung adulthood is a period often characterized by financial fragility. Young adultsearn the lowest incomes of their careers while making decisions about obtainingpostsecondary education, living independently, finding and changing employment, and repaying educational debt (Bell et al., 2007, and Mishel et al., 2012). They may also have limited assets on which to draw during times of financial need, given that half of young adults through age 40 lack sufficient accumulated assets to sustain themselves above the poverty line for three months without regular income (Rank and Hirschl, 2010). One study finds that the average savings account balance of young adults is generally low, from $639 to $1,881 between 16 and 35 years of age (Friedline and Nam, 2014). This low average suggests Understanding the balance sheets of today’s young adults—particularly the factors that set them on a path to financial security through asset diversification and accumulation—lends some insight into the balance sheets they will have when they are older. This study uses panel data from the Census Bureau’s 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation to investigate the acquisition of a savings account as a gateway to asset diversification and accumulation for young adults. Two avenues were considered: The first emphasized ownership of a diverse portfolio of financial products, and the second emphasized the accumulated value of liquid assets. Almost half of the surveyed young adults owned a savings account (43 percent) and approximately 3 percent acquired a savings account over the course
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.336 | 0.256 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".