GINI Country Report: Growing Inequalities and their Impacts in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to many modern economies, the overall level of income inequality in Canada has been relatively high since 1980 and grown steadily since. Specifically, the Gini coefficient for household incomes grew from 0.37 in 1980 to 0.45 by 2009. The largest gains in incomes occurred at the very top of the income distribution. Overall, those in the middle of the income distribution were relatively unaffected. There were consequences for the poor, however. Most of the rise in inequality occurred during the 1990s, a period in Canadian history marked by government cuts to spending with the goal of tackling a huge public. Other important contributors to changes in inequality in Canada are a decline in large-scale manufacturing, which has been progressively replaced by lower paying service industry jobs, a decline in government expenditures as a proportion of GDP, and changes to the tax structure that favoured the rich. In short, Canadian governments became increasingly less concerned with social spending and redistribution from the 1990s onwards and focussed instead on decreasing Canada’s huge public debt.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".