MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1534765361 · doi:10.1787/023874261242

National Versus Regional Financing and Management of Unemployment and Related Benefits

2003· report· en· W1534765361 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOECD social employment and migration working papers · 2003
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentBusinessFinanceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decentralization looms large in any analysis of Canadian economic and social policy. This trend has been especially pronounced in the area of unemployment insurance (UI) and social assistance (SA) programmes. Provinces now manage SA programmes and retain 100% of any cost savings that they achieve, while the Federal government maintains full responsibility for the passive component of UI. Under a series of provincial-federal Labour Market Development Agreements, since 1997 most of Canada's provinces have taken over administrative responsibility for the employment benefit and support measures (EBSMs) targeted on UI beneficiaries. A number of articles have examined the implications for provincial SA systems of restrictive measures in the UI programme. This paper examines the possibility that provinces may shift actual and potential SA clients onto the insurance system (now called employment insurance, EI). It concludes that within the context of EBSMs, any cost-shifting of this ...

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.248 · 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