Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major revisions to the Canadian unemployment insurance program in 1997 created a benefit structure that effectively provides more insurance to workers who are employed for longer workweeks. This anomaly creates an incentive for workers and firms to tailor their weekly work schedules to maximize net program benefits. Analysis of Labour Force Survey data shows that workers and firms responded to these changes by altering weekly hours as expected. This behavioural response demonstrates the sensitivity of hours of work decisions to labour market policies. JEL classification: J65 Les effets de l’assurance‐chômage sur le nombre hebdomadaire d’heures de travail au Canada. Des changements majeurs dans le programme canadien d’assurance‐chômage en 1997 ont mis en place une structure de prestations qui fournissait un support additionnel aux travailleurs qui travaillaient de plus longues heures dans la semaine. Cette anomalie a créé une incitation pour travailleurs et entreprises à ajuster leur cédule hebdomadaire de travail de manière à maximiser les bénéfices nets du programme. L’analyse des données de l’Enquête sur la population active montre que travailleurs et entreprises ont répondu à ces changements en ajustant les heures hebdomadaires de travail comme prévu. Cette réaction montre bien la sensitivité des heures de travail aux politiques du marché du travail.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".