The Potential Contribution of Aboriginal Canadians to Labour Force, Employment, Productivity and Output Growth in Canada, 2001-2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investing in disadvantaged young people is one of the rare public policies with no equity-efficiency tradeoff. This report estimates the potential benefit for the Canadian economy of increasing the educational attainment level of Aboriginal Canadians. We find that increasing the number of Aboriginals who complete high school is a low-hanging fruit with significant and far-reaching economic and social benefits for Canadians. Not only would it significantly contribute to increase the personal well-being of Aboriginal Canadians, but it would also contribute somewhat to alleviating two of the most pressing challenges facing the Canadian economy: slower labour force growth and lackluster labour productivity growth. In fact, we find that in the best case scenario where by 2017 the educational attainment and the labour market outcomes at a given level of educational attainment of Aboriginal Canadians reach the same level non-Aboriginal Canadians had in 2001, the potential contribution of Aboriginal Canadians is up to an additional cumulative $160 billion (2001 dollars) over the 2001-2017 period. That represents an increase of $21.5 billion (2001 dollars) in 2017 alone. Moreover, the potential contribution of Aboriginal Canadians to the total growth of the labour force between 2001 and 2017 is projected to be up to 7.39 per cent of the total labour force growth, much higher than their projected 3.37 per cent share of the working age population in 2017. Finally, we find that the potential contribution of Aboriginal Canadians to the annual growth rate of labour productivity in Canada is up to 0.037 percentage point.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".