Bibliographic record
Abstract
Household saving – the difference between household disposable income and household consumption – has declined over the last two decades and now appears to be negative. On the other hand, household wealth has risen. This has been due to rises in house prices, which have pushed up the equity held by households in residential property. While a downward trend in household saving is evident across many developed countries, New Zealand’s household saving rate has been among the lowest, or the lowest, for much of the last 20 years. Also, New Zealand households have lower levels of wealth than households in Australia, Canada, the UK and the US. While New Zealanders’ wealth in housing, as a proportion of disposable income, is around the same as for these other countries, it seems that on average New Zealand households own less financial wealth (e.g. shares and bonds). In view of this pattern, the Economics Department of the Reserve Bank decided to undertake a small-scale exploratory study of households’ attitudes to various forms of investment. The idea behind this work was to get a view, from a sociological perspective rather than an economic perspective, on why wealth in New Zealand is held in the way it is. This perspective contributes to the Economic Department’s ongoing programme of work on the financial position of households.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".