MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948827318 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2019-012

Social Policy and Income Mobility: An Interprovincial Perspective

2019· article· en· W2948827318 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Guy Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyDisadvantagedSocial mobilityGovernment (linguistics)EconomicsDemographic economicsEconomic mobilitySocial policyDevelopment economicsPerspective (graphical)Public policyEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I analyse intragenerational income mobility and the long-term dynamics of poverty. The proposed analysis is based on the Longitudinal and International Study of Adults and covers the period from 1983 to 2011. This period encompasses major social reforms that were implemented in Quebec and Ontario in the 1990s. In Quebec, several innovative policies were implemented with the aim of promoting the integration of economically disadvantaged people into the labour market. In Ontario, the government instead relied on coercive policies to achieve the same ends. The analysis proposes to indirectly investigate the effects of these reforms on income mobility and poverty dynamics. To do this, I present a Quebec–Ontario comparative study using several distinct cohorts. Although many studies have found that income disparities and relative poverty are lower in Quebec, the data do not allow me to conclude that the policies that were implemented in Quebec have had a significant effect on social mobility or on the dynamics of poverty.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207