Measuring off-reserve aboriginal poverty and income inequality in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though there has been substantial research on poverty and inequality in Canada, the issue of Aboriginal poverty and inequality has not yet been examined in a systematic manner. The issue has been discussed, in some cases, as a part of the overall poverty profile, and mostly analysed in a cross-sectional manner. A complete and methodical study of Aboriginal poverty and inequality that allows behaviour of poverty and inequality to be analysed over time remains to be initiated. In order to get a comprehensive comparative picture of Aboriginal income poverty and inequality in Canada, the research measures off-reserve Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal income poverty and inequality for the period 1996-2007 and compares the results for off-reserve Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population groups. For measurement purposes Statistics Canada’s low income cut-offs are considered as poverty lines. Several commonly known along with some axiomatically correct poverty indices such as Headcount Ratio, Income Gap Ratio, Poverty Gap Index, Foster-Greer-Thorbecke Index, Sen Index and some modifications of the Sen Index such as the Sen-Shorrocks-Thon (SSTO) Index are used. The Gini coefficient is used as the measure of inequality. Both pre-tax and post-tax incomes are considered. Though a substantial decline in off-reserve Aboriginal poverty is recorded by most of the poverty indices by early 2000s, off-reserve Aboriginal poverty remains higher than non-Aboriginal poverty. After the decline, these off-reserve Aboriginal poverty indices remain stable and show some decline from mid-2000s onwards. Income inequality among the non-Aboriginal population remains stable throughout the period whereas off-reserve Aboriginal income inequality shows a slightly increasing trend in the 2000s. According to the breakdown of the SSTO Index, the decline in off-reserve Aboriginal poverty is mainly due to decline in the headcount ratio.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".