The Beveridge curve and unemployment fluctuations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We estimate the impact of cyclical, sectoral, and participation shocks and that of the trend on both the Canadian unemployment rate and the job vacancy rate over the 1969 to 1998 period. We conclude that a rise in the Canadian unemployment rate of almost 5 percentage units occurred between 1972 and 1982 because of participation rate shocks and a trend movement. Because the trend also explains the leftward shift of the Beveridge curve observed in the 1990s, this shift cannot be interpreted as a decline in the natural unemployment rate. La courbe de Beveridge et les fluctuations du chômage au Canada. Les auteurs évaluent la contribution des chocs sectoriels, des changements dans le taux d'activité, des fluctuations cycliques et de la tendance sur les mouvements du taux de chômage et du taux de postes vacants pendant la période 1969–98. Ils concluent que le taux de chômage non conjoncturel s'est accru de près de 5 points de pourcentage entre 1972 et 1982 en raison de chocs dans le taux d'activité et d'un mouvement tendanciel. Le déplacement vers la gauche de la courbe de Beveridge observé dans les années 1990 est pour sa part le résultat d'une baisse tendancielle des postes vacants et n'indique nullement que le taux de chômage naturel ait diminué pendant cette période.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".