MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053206760 · doi:10.3138/q533-8847-3785-1360

Labour Supply Effects of Informal Caregiving in Canada

2006· article· en· W2053206760 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ehsan Latif

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbitProbit modelEstimationLabour supplyDemographic economicsSample (material)Ordered probitEconomicsWork (physics)Ordinary least squaresRegression analysisWork hoursPsychologyLabour economicsEconometricsWorking hoursStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uses Canadian data from the 1996 General Social Survey to estimate a conventional labour supply model and examine the impacts of caregiving to elderly persons on caregivers' labour market behaviour. The results of OLS regression for employed individuals suggest that caregiving negatively impacts the number of work hours for both males and females, although the impact is statistically significant only in the female sample. Probit estimation suggests that caregiving has a negative but insignificant effect on the probability of being employed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207