MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

L’impact des services de garde à contribution réduite du Québec sur le taux d’activité féminin, le revenu intérieur et les budgets gouvernementaux

2013· article· fr· W1540488711 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Pierre Fortin, Luc Godbout, Suzie St‐Cerny

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventions économiques · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au Québec, un programme de services de garde à contribution réduite pour les enfants d’âge préscolaire a été introduit en 1997. Sur la base d’études antérieures, nous estimons qu’en 2008 ce programme a permis à environ 69 700 mères (ou 3,8 %) de plus de détenir un emploi que si le Québec avait plutôt continué à suivre l’approche traditionnelle (surtout fiscalisée) qui est restée en vigueur dans les autres provinces canadiennes. Nous calculons que cette addition de mères au marché du travail a entraîné une majoration de 5,1 G$ (ou 1,7 %) du revenu intérieur (PIB) du Québec. Nous estimons ensuite les effets du programme sur les subventions directes aux services de garde, sur les dépenses fiscales fédérales et provinciales pour frais de garde et sur les revenus autonomes et les transferts gouvernementaux qui résultent de la hausse du revenu d’emploi des mères et du PIB. En comparaison de l’approche traditionnelle, nous estimons qu’au net le programme québécois a eu un impact favorable de 919 M$ sur les soldes budgétaires gouvernementaux en 2008.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventions économiquesSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207