MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601941797

L'instabilite des gains familiaux et du revenu familial au Canada, 1986 a 1991 et 1996 a 2001

2005· preprint· fr· W1601941797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
René Morissette, Yuri Ostrovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2005
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous etudions l'evolution de l'instabilite des gains familiaux de la fin des annees 1980 a la fin des annees 1990 et du revenu familial d'un segment a l'autre de la courbe de distribution des gains familiaux. Nous degageons quatre grands profils. Premierement, dans le sous ensemble de familles demeurees intactes de 1982 a 1991 et de 1992 a 2001, l'instabilite des gains familiaux a peu varie de la fin des annees 1980 a la fin des annees 1990. Deuxiemement, la dispersion des gains permanents des familles est devenue beaucoup plus inegale au cours de cette periode. Troisiemement, les familles classees dans le tertile inferieur de la distribution des gains (selon l'age) de 1992 a 1995 ont eu, de 1996 a 2000, un revenu du marche nettement plus instable que leurs homologues du tertile superieur. Quatriemement, parmi les familles dont le mari avait moins de 45 ans, le regime d'impots et de transferts a, durant la periode allant de 1996 a 2001, elimine au moins les deux tiers (et jusqu'à la totalite) des differences d'instabilite (exprimees en gains/pertes proportionnels de revenu) du revenu du marche familial observees entre les familles des tertiles inferieur et superieur. Ce resultat met en relief le role stabilisateur cle joue par le regime d'impots et de transferts, un aspect auquel assez peu d'attention a ete accordee durant les annees 1990, au moment de la reforme de l'assurance emploi (l'assurance chomage) et de l'assistance sociale.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207