MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099104376

Child Support in an Economic Downturn: Changes in Earnings, Child Support Orders, and Payments

2011· article· en· W7099104376 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducation, Technology, and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild supportReceiptPovertyIncome SupportQuarter (Canadian coin)Public supportEarningsPaymentChild poverty
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in Earnings, Child Support Orders, and Payments The number of single parent families, especially mother-child families, has increased dramatically since the 1970s, and prior research has found that these families are particularly vulnerable to poverty (Mather, 2010). With approximately 40 percent of single mother families living in poverty and close to one quarter of single father families with poverty-level earnings (compared to 8.3 percent of married families living in poverty; U. S. Census Bureau, 2010), policymakers and the public have grown increasingly concerned about the well-being of children residing in single-parent homes. With growing numbers of children living in single-parent families and decreases in public aid for these families, child support has become an important source of income for single-parent families (Cancian, Meyer, and Park, 2003; Cancian and Meyer, 2006; Sorenson, 2010). This is especially the case for lower-income mothers as child support receipt is more crucial to their finances than it is for higherincome mothers (Sorensen and Zibman, 2000; Ha, Cancian, and Meyer, 2007). Nevertheless, researchers have found that child support receipts are often irregular and unstable in their timing and amounts (Ha et al., 2007). Multiple studies have revealed that many fathers, especially those living in poverty, either pay

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation, Technology, and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207