MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064355418 · doi:10.3138/cpp.37.2.201

The Redistributional Impact of Canada's Employment Insurance Program, 1992–2002

2011· article· en· W2064355418 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ross Finnie, Ian Irvine

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActuarial scienceEconomicsBusinessDemographic economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a decade or so starting in the early 1990s, Canada’s major income support programs underwent substantial reform. Meanwhile, the economy first lingered in a deep recession and then recovered with a period of strong growth. This paper focuses on how the distributional impact of Employment Insurance (EI) evolved during this period. We find that EI was strongly redistributive throughout the whole period with respect to the earnings of individuals, and somewhat less so for family income. But we also show that the distribution of benefits and contributions changed substantially over time, becoming less redistributive. Somewhat counter-intuitively, both the benefit and contribution sides of the program are shown to be redistributive, even though the contribution structure is regressive. These findings are relevant in the current context, as the economy struggles with a combination of high unemployment and fiscal pressures on government spending.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207