MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735404575 · doi:10.25336/p6ns4b

Two centuries of demographic change in Canada

2014· article· en· W2735404575 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Barry Edmonston

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulation momentumFertilityVital ratesDemographic transitionDemographic changePopulationDemographyAge structurePopulation growthMomentum (technical analysis)Total fertility ratePopulation sizeMortality rateGeographyBirth rateEconomicsResearch methodologySociologyFamily planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One key aspect of the demographic transition—the shift from high mortality and high fertility to low mortality and low fertility is a major change in the population’s age distribution from a pyramid-shaped young age structure to a pillar-shaped old age structure. This paper discusses two demographic processes affected by changes in age structure. First, there are effects on vital rates, with important differences in the observed crude rates and the implied intrinsic vital rates. Second, changes in age structure influence population momentum. More recently, demographers have noted that older age distributions associated with fertility levels below replacement have negative population momentum. Although the demographic transition has been well-described for many countries, demographers have seldom analyzed intrinsic vital rates and population momentum over time, which are dynamic processes affected by changes in the population age structure and which, in turn, influence future changes in population growth and size. This paper uses new data and methods to analyze intrinsic vital rates and population momentum across two centuries of demographic change 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.286 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207