MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524358075

Low-Income in Census Metropolitan Areas, 1980–2000

2004· preprint· en· W1524358075 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Heisz, Logan McLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2004
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaCensus tractCensusImmigrationHousehold incomePopulationDemographic economicsGeographyLow incomeTotal personal incomeMedian incomeSocioeconomicsFamily incomeGross incomeEconomicsDemographyEconomic growthSociologyState income tax
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The report examines income and low income in census metropolitan areas between 1980 and 2000. It examines the situation of families and the neighbourhoods they live in. It also examines the situation of recent immigrants, Aboriginal people and lone-parent family members. Median pre-tax income rose in virtually all Canadian census metropolitan areas (CMAs) over the 1980 to 2000 period. Incomes increased at both the top and bottom of the income distribution, but tended to rise faster at the top. In nearly all cities, income increased faster in the higher income neighbourhoods - measured at the census tract (CT) level - than it did in lower income neighbourhoods. The incidence of low income was at similar levels in 1980 and 2000, but the demographic composition of low income changed, reflecting rising low-income rates among some 'at-risk' groups, as well as demographic changes in the CMA. By 2000, recent immigrants comprised more of the low-income population, and a greater share of the residents in low-income neighbourhoods than they did in 1980. Recent immigrants had much higher low-income rates in 2000 than in 1980. In 2000, Aboriginal people and people in single-parent families had much higher low-income rates than others and were over-represented in low-income neighbourhoods. The share of income that low-income families received from government transfers rose over the period. The location of low-income neighbourhoods changed in some CMAs, reflecting a decline in low-income neighbourhoods in the city centre and a rise in low-income neighbourhoods in more suburban areas. The report examines before-tax income in CMAs using the 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996 and 2001 censuses of Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations43
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207