MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174513632 · doi:10.1111/caje.12143

Consumption inequality in Canada, 1997 to 2009

2015· article· en· W2174513632 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Sam Norris, Krishna Pendakur

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInequalityConsumption (sociology)Gini coefficientImputation (statistics)EconomicsEconometricsDemographic economicsRentingEconomic inequalityStatisticsMathematicsSociologyMissing data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We assess the evolution of consumption inequality in Canada over the years 1997 to 2009. We correct the imputation of shelter consumption for homeowners to allow for unobserved differences in housing quality correlated with selection into rental tenure, and we account for measurement error in this imputation. Using the annual Survey of Household Spending for years 1997 to 2009, we find that household‐level consumption inequality measured by the Gini coefficient increased from 0.251 to 0.275 over 1997 to 2006. Between 2006 and 2007, consumption inequality may have decreased, and over 2007 to 2009, consumption inequality was flat. Over the entire period of 1997 to 2009, consumption inequality increased moderately. The Gini coefficient for individual‐level consumption inequality followed a similar pattern, though the changes were smaller in magnitude. We also explore a possible correction for tail non‐response bias in inequality measurement and find that the increase in measured consumption inequality is robust to this correction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.034 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économiqueSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207