Pauvreté et convergence des consommations au Canada*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study changes in household consumption patterns, five socio‐economic household groups were defined using a new multidimensional index (IMPR) composed of three dimensions: satisfaction of basic needs, marginalization relative to a reference population, and total disposable household income. When household incomes rose from 1969 to 1992, lower socio‐economic groups did not display the same consumption behaviours as upper‐income classes. The growth in household income during their life‐cycles did not allow them to catch up to higher‐income households. Middle‐class households experienced marked changes in consumption over their life‐cycle's, but in the 1990s, they experienced difficulties. Cinq groupes socioéconomiques de ménages sont définis à l'aide d'un nouvel indice multidimensionnel de pauvreté‐richesse (IMPR), construit à partir de trois dimensions: satisfaction des besoins de base, marginalisation par rapport à une population de référence et revenu total disponible du ménage. De 1969 à 1992, quand les revenus des ménages augmentent, les classes socioéconomiques qui occupent des positions inférieures n'ont pas les mêmes comporte‐ments de consommation que les classes supérieures. La croissance des revenus des ménages les moins riches au cours de leur cycle de vie ne leur permet pas de rattraper les positions des ménages plus riches. Dans les années 1990, la classe moyenne connaît une situation difficile.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".