Labour Force Activity of Women in Canada: A Comparative Analysis of Aboriginal and Non‐Aboriginal Women*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En s'appuyant sur les données du Fichier de mierodonnées à grande diffusion (FMGD) de 1996 sur les individus, cet article examine L'activité sur le marché du travail des femmes au Canada en mettant L'accent sur les effets du statut familial et de la structure du ménage pour déterminer si ces facteurs ont des réponses élastiques similaires chez les femmes autochtones et non autochtones. Nous avons trouvé que cette activité varie largement en fonction du statut d'autochtone. En général, les Indiens de plein droit avaient moms de chances de trouver un emploi que les autres autochtones ou les non‐autochtones. Alors que le niveau d'instruction, la présence d'enfants mineurs et la monoparentalité semblaient associés à une probabilité plus basse d'emploi, des différences significatives en fonction du statut d'autochtone ont été décelées. Les répercussions sur Pemploi du niveau d'instruction se sont révélées plus fortes chez les Indiens de plein droit. Using data from the 1996 Public Use Microdata File (PUMF) on individuals, this paper examines labour force activity of women in Canada, focussing on the effects of familial status and household structure to determine whether these factors have similar elasticities among Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal women. We found that labour force activity varied greatly by Aboriginal Status. In general, Registered Indians were less likely to be employed but more likely to be unemployed than Other Aboriginals and non‐Aboriginals. While lower educational attainment, presence of minor children and lone parenthood were found to be associated with a lower likelihood of being employed, significant differences by Aboriginal Status were found. The effect of educational attainment on employment was found to be higher among Registered Indians.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".