MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2143691885

ALBERTA WELFARE REFORM AND EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS AND SINGLE-MOTHERS

2011· article· en· W2143691885 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rosita Yi Ki Kwan

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfare reformSingle mothersWelfareEconomicsLabour economicsWageUnobservableLabour supplyDemographic economicsWork (physics)Psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though the economic literature generally agrees on the positive labour supply effects of welfare reforms in the 1990s; there have been few studies that evaluate how these reforms might have affected employment outcomes of former and potential welfare recipients. This study fills this gap by using the 1993 Alberta welfare reform as a natural experiment. The 1993 and 1994 data from Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics show that welfare recipients and single mothers in Alberta were more likely to participate in the labour force and worked full-time for employers with multiple offices across Canada. Moreover, single mothers received lower wage rates if their employment started after the reform. After controlling for individual heterogeneity; however, single mothers were found to receive higher wage rates and less likely to work full-time. These findings suggest unobservable characteristics are also significant in determining employment outcomes of those affected by welfare reforms.

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 score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→