MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006185186 · doi:10.1080/00036840701721315

The impact of the employment insurance repayment policy: nonexperimental approaches

2008· article· en· W2006185186 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wen‐Hao Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Economics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Ministry of LabourStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsSample (material)Matching (statistics)CurrencyEstimationQuality (philosophy)Income SupportPercentage pointActuarial scienceEconometricsDemographic economicsLabour economicsStatisticsMacroeconomicsFinanceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines the impact of the strengthened repayment provision under the Employment Insurance (EI) system in Canada. The provision has introduced an increase in benefit repayment rates and a reduction in the repayment threshold. Without a randomized experiment, this article uses various nonexperimental approaches, particularly matching, to estimate the policy effect. Using data from the Survey of Changes in Employment (CIE) and the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID), the results suggest that the new repayment policy has reduced the probabilities of filing a claim among workers whose annual income is equal to or greater than $48 750. The estimated decline in the claim rate ranges between 6 and 12 percentage points, depending on the datasets. The results appear to be robust regardless of the methods of estimation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.124
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.244
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1240.244
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied EconomicsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207