MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125591158 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2012-034

The Prince and the Pauper: Movement of Children up and down the Canadian Income Distribution

2014· article· en· W2125591158 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter Burton, Shelley Phipps, Lihui Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrodata (statistics)PovertyEquity (law)Demographic economicsIncome distributionDistribution (mathematics)EconomicsPanel Study of Income DynamicsDevelopment economicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceSociologyDemographyInequalityCensus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses longitudinal microdata from the Statistics Canada National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) to study the family income dynamics of Canadian children from the time they are 4 or 5 until they are 14 or 15. Dynamics of family income have been studied less often than dynamics of child poverty. Yet we argue that from the perspective of equity, it is important to know the extent to which some children are always affluent while other children are always poor. Also, since our social safety net is designed to shelter Canadians, including children, from both economic hardship and economic loss, it is also important, from the perspective of policy, to assess risk factors for persistent low income as well as correlates of major economic loss.

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)0.003
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptationFrench-language works237,207