L’action publique et la fécondité – Aperçu d’une étude empirique du processus qui régit la première naissance au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on the relationship between state policy and fertility usually seek to evaluate the impact of one or more measures on fertility. This article does not aim to focus on the impact of one measure in particular, or of public measures as a whole, on fertility, but rather on the way in which Canadian couples that are likely to have a first child react to the environment created by the state and the labour market. We use data from a prospective longitudinal survey of households conducted by Statistics Canada - Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics. We focus on couples in which both spouses are wage-earners before the birth of their first child. Our results show that few factors have a noticeable impact. The decision leading to the first birth appears to be governed by two different mechanisms - depending on whether or not the couple’s income is modest. When the family income is modest, the decision is based on the amount of recurrent financial support ; when the family income is average, the decision is based instead on the amount of maternity benefits that will compensate for the loss of income during maternity leave. In all cases, the female spouse’s permanent employment plays a decisive role. Ownership of the family residence also plays an important role. To sum up, the decision to have a first child appears to depend, above all, on the female spouse’s financial and employment circumstances and on the couple’s evaluation of what the family’s financial situation will be once the child is born.
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 | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".