MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159099639 · doi:10.1068/a42288

Low-Income-Country Import Competition and the Structure of Earnings Inequality in Canada, 1996–2001

2010· article· en· W2159099639 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sébastien Breau

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and Space · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsEconomicsCompetition (biology)InequalityWageDemographic economicsLabour economicsPercentage pointWage inequalityEconomic inequality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses a detailed employer–employee dataset to test the effects of low-income-country import competition on the earnings of workers in manufacturing industries in Canada. From 1996 to 2001 earnings inequality increased: the wage gap between manufacturing workers with a university degree and those without a high school diploma rose from 35% to 43%. Greater import competition is found to explain part of the growing wage gap, consistent with Stolper–Samuelson effects. Point estimates suggest that these effects increased slightly over the period of study and are strongest in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, provinces with the highest low-income-country import-penetration rates. However, the results also suggest (i) the relative wage effects of increased import competition are not as ‘clear cut’ as predicted by the Stolper–Samuelson theorem and (ii) that other individual and plant-level factors are important determinants of the structure of earnings inequality in Canada.

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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.166 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and SpaceSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207