MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1591591672 · doi:10.7202/601358ar

Répartition du revenu selon le sexe dans quatre agglomérations urbaines du Canada

2009· article· fr· W1591591672 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueL Actualité économique · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsStatistics CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepartitionGeographyIncome distributionWelfare economicsPersonal income taxPolitical scienceInequalityEthnologyHumanitiesSociologyEconomicsGross incomeArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les auteurs de ce rapport appliquent des données tirées des déclarations personnelles de revenus à l’analyse des répartitions et des écarts entre répartitions du revenu des hommes et des femmes entre 1969 et 1981 dans quatre agglomérations urbaines du Canada : Chicoutimi-Jonquière, London, Saskatoon et Sudbury. Ces régions ont connu des fortunes économiques diverses au cours de la décennie étudiée. Un modèle paramétrique de répartition du revenu est ajusté aux répartitions des revenus d’emploi selon le sexe et l’âge, et des indicateurs d’inégalité de répartition et d’inégalités entre répartitions en sont dérivés. Les effets de certaines variables socio-économiques sur ces indicateurs sont analysés par régression. Les résultats montrent que le modèle de répartition du revenu et la base de données administratives employés sont des outils utiles pour l’analyse et l’interprétation des inégalités de revenu.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.168 · 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