MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1914146046 · doi:10.25336/p6d047

A Microsimulation Model to Study the Interaction between Fertility and Union Formation and Dissolution: An Application to Canada and Quebec

2010· article· en· W1914146046 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alain Bélanger, Jean-Dominique Morency, Martin Spielauer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptation
Canadian institutionsStatistics CanadaInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityMicrosimulationDemographic economicsDemographyGeneral Social SurveyEconomicsSurvey data collectionQuarter (Canadian coin)GeographySociologySocioeconomicsPsychologyPopulationSocial psychologyStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Union formation and dissolution are among the main determinants explaining variations in fertility. Compared to the rest of Canada, Quebec’s marital histories are more complex and its prevalence of common-law unions much higher. The objective of this article is to examine the role of marital behaviours on fertility by comparing different indicators of fertility and conjugal life that were obtained through microsimulation. Parameters of the microsimulation model were estimated from hazard regressions performed on the marital and fertility histories collected in two retrospective longitudinal surveys: the Canadian General Social Survey (GSS) 2001 and 2006. Results show that the more complex marital histories of Quebecers can explain more than one-quarter of their fertility differences with the rest of the country.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptationFrench-language works237,207