Evaluation of the Impact of the Increase in EI Allowable Earnings Pilot Project on Working While on Claim and Job Search Behaviour in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the impact of the change in allowable earnings proposed in a pilot project (WWOC) of the Canadian Employment Insurance system implemented in December 2005 in some Canadian regions on working while on claim behaviour and on job search behaviour. The WWOC pilot is expected to increase the subsidy to low earnings/part-time work. Search theory would predict that, all else equal, individuals would increase their intensity of search for these types of jobs. We find evidence that the WWOC pilot substantially increased the incidence and duration of work while on claim receiving full benefits and reduced the incidence and duration of working while on claim receiving no benefits for both men and women. We also find differences in the impact of the WWOC pilot on the job search behaviour of men. These results suggest that the WWOC pilot significantly encouraged working while on claim in low-paying jobs allowing receipt of full benefits. The WWOC pilot significantly reduced the number of hours looking for a job and reduced the likelihood of looking for only a full-time job (relative to looking for only a part-time job or either). These results are robust to the various robustness check analyses performed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".