Differences in Annual Work Hours per Capita between the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In addition to productivity levels, living standards, as measured by GDP per capita, are determined by both average hours worked per person employed and the share of employment in the total population employed. In this article, Pierre Fortin from the University of Quebec at Montreal examines differences in annual work hours on a per capita basis between the United States and Canada. He finds that in 2001 average hours worked was lower in Canada (91 per cent of the U.S. level), while the employment/total population ratio was actually higher in Canada (103 per cent of the U.S. level). With output per hour in Canada 90 per cent of the U.S. level, the overall effect of these three variables was to produce a level of GDP per capita in Canada that was 85 per cent of the U.S. level. He also finds that Ontario in 2001 had enjoyed a higher level of GDP per capita than Quebec (86 per cent versus 77 per cent of the U.S. level) because of its greater average hours worked and higher employment/total population ratio, offset by a slightly lower productivity level.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".