Measuring Income Mobility in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key findings:•This study measures income mobility in Canada over two five-year periods (1996-2001 and 2002-2007) and over a 10-year and a 19-year period (1990-2000 and 1990-2009). In all periods, Canadians initially in the lowest income group (the bottom 20%) experienced the greatest relative income increase.•Over the 10-year period (1990 to 2000), 83 percent of Canadians who started in the bottom 20% moved to a higher income group. Over the 19-year period (1990 to 2009), 87 percent in the bottom 20% moved up with 21 percent of them reaching the highest income group (the top 20%).•Some Canadians experienced a relative decline in income. Of those in the top 20% in 1990, 36 percent moved down at least one income group by 2009.•The average income of those initially in the bottom 20% in 1990 grew an impressive 635 percent by 2009, while the average income of those initially in the top 20% grew by only 23 percent over the same period.•In 1990, the average income of individuals in the highest income group was 13 times that of individuals initially in the lowest group. By 2009, those who had been in the highest group in 1990 had an average income only twice that of those who had been in the lowest group in 1990.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".