MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W168741960

Effects of New Welfare Reform Strategies on Welfare Participation: Microdata Estimates from Canada

2013· preprint· en· W168741960 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathan Berg, Todd Gabel

Bibliographic record

VenueOtago University Research Archive (University of Otago) · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrodata (statistics)WelfareEconomicsUnemploymentDemographic economicsImmigrationUnemployment rateSocial WelfarePublic economicsLabour economicsEconomic growthGeographyPolitical scienceDemographyPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces newly coded information describing province- and year-specific variation in work requirements, diversion, earning exemptions, and time limits. This new information reveals a large decline in the chance of welfare participation of at least 1.1 percentage points (9.2% relative to the unconditional mean rate of participation) associated with stringent combinations of those four new welfare reforms, even after controlling for benefit levels, eligibility requirements, province-specific GDP growth and unemployment. These results replicate previous findings based on aggregate data and extend them with controls for individual-level characteristics. Microdata with individual-level characteristics enable estimates of the effects of new welfare reforms on 46 subpopulations, suggesting that immigrants, native Canadians, single parents and disabled people were far more effected by provinces' aggressive new attempts to limit welfare participation than other Canadians receiving social assistance.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtago University Research Archive (University of Otago)Same topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207