A Welfare Trap? The Duration and Dynamics of Social Assistance Use among Lone Mothers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À la fin des années 1990, la politique de l'aide sociale canadienne s'est transformée, pour se concentrer sur la diminution de la «dépendance» ou de l'aide sociale à long terme. En utilisant des données de l'Enquête sur la dynamique du travail et du revenu (1996–2001) et l'analyse historique des événements, l'auteur étudie la durée de l'aide sociale chez les mères monoparentales et autres chefs de ménage. Ses résultats montrent que l'instruction des mères monoparentales et leur expérience du marché du travail constituaient des prédicteurs moins importants de la durée de l'aide sociale que leur histoire conjugale. Quoique les prestations qu'elles recevaient duraient généralement peu de temps, l'auteur a trouvé la preuve d'une dépendance néfaste, ou du «piège de l'aide sociale», après un contrôle de l'hétérogénéité non observée. C'est un exemple démontrant que recevoir de l'aide sociale est non seulement le résultat de trajectoires de vie particulières, mais façonne aussi la vie. In the late 1990s, the Canadian social assistance policy changed to focus on reducing “dependency” or long‐term receipt. Using data from the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (1996–2001) and event history models, we investigate the duration of social assistance receipt for lone mothers and other household heads. We find that lone mothers' education and labor force experience were less important predictors for their duration on social assistance than their previous marital history. Although receipt was generally short term, we find evidence of negative duration dependence, or a “welfare trap,” after controlling for unobserved heterogeneity. This indicates one way in which a welfare receipt is not only the result of particular life course trajectories but also shapes lives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".