acknowledged. Preliminary versions of this paper have been presented in conferences in
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and an anonymous referee for useful comments and suggestions. This paper was written while we were working at DELTA and at CREFA, Laval University. The usual disclaimer applies. Résumé: Dans cet article, nous adoptons les hypothèses habituelles de l’approche collective, à savoir, l’individualisme et l’e¢cacité, pour étudier l’o¤re de travail du ménage. L’innovation théorique est double. D’une part, nous incorporons dans le cadre initial la décision de participer au marché du travail. D’autre part, nous abandonnons l’hypothèse de linéarité de la contrainte budgetaire. Nous montrons alors que (i) des éléments structurels du processus de décision peuvent être retrouvés, et (ii) des restrictions testables sont générées de l’observation des o¤res de travail du ménage. Nous examinons également, pour ce modèle, comment faire des simulations de réformes …scales. In this paper, we adopt the usual assumptions of the collective approach, i.e. individualism and e¢ciency, to study household labor supply. The theoretical
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.463 | 0.093 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".