MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515957010

The Hole in Ontario's Budget: WSIB's Unfunded Liability

2012· preprint· en· W1515957010 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Colin Busby, Finn Poschmann

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityBusinessPaceAsset (computer security)RevenueFinanceWageActuarial scienceEconomicsLabour economics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario faces a $19.7 billion unfunded liability at its Workplace Safety Insurance Board (WSIB) based on a fair-value accounting approach. In the report, the authors say the WSIB, which levies employer premiums intended to fund benefits for employees injured in the workplace, has a problem that needs addressing: the WSIB's pace of revenue collection and asset accumulation has not matched growth in current and expected benefit entitlements. The report concludes that protecting taxpayers from bearing the costs of unfunded benefits will require fixing the WSIB's financing problems, through increased employer contributions - implying lower wage growth for employees - benefit adjustments, or both. To facilitate these changes, more stringent financing rules are required.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207