MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527835469 · doi:10.1111/caje.12347

Downward nominal wage rigidity in Canada: Evidence from micro‐level data

2018· article· en· W2527835469 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dany Brouillette, Olena Kostyshyna, Natalia Kyui

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWagePanel dataEconomicsSurvey data collectionInflation (cosmology)Rigidity (electromagnetism)Labour economicsHuman settlementDemographic economicsGeographyEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We assess the importance of downward nominal wage rigidity (DNWR) in Canada using employer‐level administrative data from the major wage settlements (MWS) and household‐based survey data from the Survey of Labour Income Dynamics (SLID). MWS data cover large unionized firms in Canada, while SLID is a rich rotating panel representative of the employed population in Canada. Combining both sources of information allows for an extensive analysis of DNWR in the Canadian labour market. We find large shares of wage freezes and smaller shares of wage cuts in both MWS and SLID. Shares of freezes are higher at lower CPI inflation rates, based on provincial data. These observations are consistent with the presence of DNWR. DNWR in Canada appears to be larger than in other countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and European countries. The incidence of DNWR is heterogeneous across firms’ and workers’ characteristics. Wages report less DNWR over longer horizons.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.116 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économiqueSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207