MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983177743 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2012-001

Exiting Poverty: Does Sex Matter?

2014· article· en· W1983177743 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lori J. Curtis, Kate Rybczynski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyQuarter (Canadian coin)SpellDemographic economicsEconomicsDevelopment economicsSocioeconomicsGeographyEconomic growthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is understood about the factors associated with poverty duration in Canada, or which factors, if any, may affect women and men differently. Moreover, research pays scant attention to how far Canadians transition out of poverty. For example, some may exit poverty only marginally, while others exit much further above the poverty line. We investigate the determinants of poverty duration among women and men in Canada. A major contribution of this article is the examination of poverty duration across different exit destinations (competing risks): exits to just above the poverty line versus exits to further above the poverty line. We find that nearly one-quarter of poverty spells end within 110 percent of the poverty line (near poverty). Many of those who exit to near poverty experience multiple spells. As expected, we find that higher education increases the probability of transitioning further out of poverty, but very little is correlated with exits to near poverty relative to remaining in poverty. The longer the poverty spell, the lower the probability of exit, particularly to higher income levels. We find few significant gender differences in the coefficient estimates. Differences are present in the characteristics associated with exits close to or further away from the poverty line.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207