Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the data series produced from the collective research project on the dynamics of income distribution (Atkinson and Piketty 2007, 2010) we have studied the effect of different economic factors on top income inequality in the Anglo-Saxon countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, USA). These effects turn out to be different for individual countries. The bubbles of …nancial market explain the surge in top income inequality in the United States. Our results reveal that the bubbles of …nancial market increase top income inequality, although the economic growth rate fails to increase top income shares in the United States. The effect of economic growth rate on top income inequality is also time varying in the Anglo Saxon region. The positive economic growth rate of post 1980 turns out to be pro rich but the economic growth rate of pre 1980 does not promote the top income inequality. The top marginal tax rate and government expenditure may have an equalizing effect by reducing income of the rich, though the impact of …nancial development on top income inequality is inconclusive.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it