MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2979202600

Labour market experiences of First Nations people living off reserve: key findings from the 2017 Aboriginal Peoples Survey

2018· article· en· W2979202600 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Henry Robertson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusWork (physics)PopulationWork forceEconomic growthSurvey data collectionUnemploymentPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsEngineeringDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This booklet provides key findings related to labour market experiences of First Nations people based on data from the 2017 Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS). Sections are divided according to labour force status. Among employed First Nations people, the prevalence of and reasons for part-time employment, self-employment and participation in other labour activities are explored among other aspects. Among unemployed First Nations people, barriers and facilitators of employment, and means of looking for work are described. Among those not in the labour force, the reasons for non-participation among those who wanted to work, and facilitators to finding work among those expecting to enter the labour force are outlined. Finally, job-related skills and access to job-related training are described. This booklet also briefly describes how the APS allows deeper exploration of concepts derived from the Census of Population, and broad topics for which data is available from the survey.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMining and Resource Management→French-language works237,207→