MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552211922 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.34143

SHORT-TERM EMPLOYMENT TRANSITIONS OF THE CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE: RURAL-URBAN DIFFERENCES

2002· preprint· en· W1552211922 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Esperanza Vera‐Toscano, Euan Phimister, Alfons Weersink

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2002
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderemploymentDisadvantageDemographic economicsLabour economicsEconomicsRural areaUnemploymentEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from the Canadian Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID) for the period 1993-1996, we examine patterns and determinants of labour force transitions of adequately employed and underemployed workers in an attempt to explore whether employment dynamics significantly differ between rural and urban workers so as to disadvantage rural economic performance. The results indicate that rural underemployed workers in Canada are, in the short run (year-to-year transitions) equally likely to enter adequate employment as adequately employed individuals are to enter underemployment. Further, we also found there is weak evidence that education level of rural workers has a lower impact on the probability of moving out of underemployment than in urban areas. In addition rural women are significantly less likely than their male cunterparts and urban workers to enter adeequate employment although the presence of young children does not seem to especially constrain rural women's employment. The results suggest that labour force transition in and out of adequate employment, and particularly underemployment, significantly differ between rural and urban workers and should be taken into account when evaluating employment hardship in rural 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207