MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W211947739

Estimating the Impact of the Québec’s Work Incentive Program on Labour Supply: An Ex Post Microsimulation Analysis

2013· preprint· en· W211947739 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fanny Moffette, Dorothée Boccanfuso, Patrick Richard, Luc Savard

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosimulationLabour supplyEconomicsSubsidyReservation wageWork (physics)Substitution effectLabour economicsMargin (machine learning)MacroWageMacro levelMicroeconomicsMacroeconomicsComputer scienceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2005, a wage subsidy program was established in Québec to encourage low-income individuals, particularly recipients of social assistance, to work, by offering them fiscal relief. We analyse the effect of this program (the Prime au travail) with a microsimulation model which determines the impact on the labour supply. We estimate the variation in the labour supply at the extensive and intensive margins which allows us to grasp both the income effect and the substitution effect of the Prime au travail on individuals’ willingness to work. On the other hand, our labour supply model has the necessary characteristics to link it to a general equilibrium model and offer an integrated macro-microsimulation analysis. Nonetheless, unlike the usual microsimulation models employed in integrated macro-microsimulation analysis, we provide a number of innovations, notably the analysis at the intensive margin so that it captures both the substitution effect and the income effect. Our results show that a number of individuals entered the labour market in response to the Prime au travail, while others decided to work fewer hours, due to increased income linked to the program. Ultimately, the variation in labour supply was less in the intensive margin than in the extensive margin and it is positive for all types of households, with the exception of female single parents.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207