L’aide sociale et le supplément au revenu de travail : une simulation économique des revenus (salaires) de réserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le but de cet article est d’analyser l’efficacité du système québécois de soutien du revenu défini par les programmes d’aide sociale (A.S.) et de supplément au revenu de travail (S.R.T.). Au plan socio-économique le travail montre qu’il faut imputer l’augmentation des bénéficiaires, aptes au travail, émergeant du principal programme de soutien du revenu (l’A.S.), à une structure inefficace de paramètres compte tenu des variables d’environnement économique. Cette conclusion s’appuie au plan scientifique sur le concept de salaire (revenu) de réserve, défini rigoureusement et généralisé pour tenir compte des coûts directs et indirects du travail. L’étude présente les différents salaires (revenus) de réserve associés à l’A.S. et au S.R.T. et leur sensibilité aux variations des paramètres des mêmes programmes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".