Veteran income and employment policies in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This article examines the history of Veteran financial benefits provided by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) since the First World War. Methods: The history of financial benefits is described using policy documents held at VAC. Data from the Life After Service Studies (LASS), covering Veterans released since 1998, were used to describe income and employment among Veterans today. Results: For wartime-era Veterans, benefits supported those with service-related disability and their employment, along with those experiencing poverty. Post–Korean War Veteran benefits were limited to service-related disability benefits. Studies during 1997–2003 suggested that the needs of Veterans and their families were inadequately addressed by existing VAC programs. Consequently, the Government of Canada announced plans to modernize its programs, and the New Veterans Charter (NVC) was launched in 2006. Subsequently, NVC financial benefits have been expanded numerous times. The incomes of Regular Force Veterans declined after release but recovered, surpassing pre-release income, and low-income rates were half that of Canadians. Most Regular Force Veterans were employed after release and satisfied with their work. Lower rates of difficult adjustment were found among employed Veterans, who were satisfied with their finances and jobs. Higher rates of difficult adjustment were found among Veterans who were not employed; who were not satisfied with their job, main activity, or finances; or who were experiencing low income. Discussion: Wartime-era Veterans’ financial benefits and employment supports were guided by the idea of opportunity with security. After 2006, policy returned to a focus on employment supports to enhance Veteran well-being while continuing to provide financial benefits for Veterans experiencing service-related disability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".