Trends in Population Growth Inequality across Subnational Jurisdictions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’apparence globale de la croissance démographique au Canada masque d’importantes inégalités de la distribution de cette croissance entre les régions du pays. Dans cet article, nous montrons que ces disparités existent à la fois entre les provinces et à l’intérieur des provinces. Dans les provinces où l’augmentation de la population est élevée, les régions métropolitaines croissent plus rapidement que les régions non métropolitaines. Dans les provinces où l’augmentation est plus faible, les régions métropolitaines croissent moins rapidement, et les régions non métropolitaines qui décroissent sont plus nombreuses que dans les provinces où l’augmentation de la population est élevée. Quand on compare les données de croissance désagrégées, on note une importante inégalité dans l’augmentation ou la diminution de la population autant entre les provinces qu’entre les divisions de recensement. En évaluant l’ampleur de ce problème, nous espérons favoriser de nouveaux débats sur la question.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".