MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982616924 · doi:10.5663/aps.v8i1.29339

Income Assistance Receipt among Off-reserve Indigenous Peoples in Canada

2019· article· en· W2982616924 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jungwee Park

Bibliographic record

Venueaboriginal policy studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiptIndigenousIncome SupportSocioeconomicsMental healthHousehold incomeGeographyDemographic economicsEnvironmental healthMedicineBusinessPolitical scienceSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study demonstrated income assistance (IA) receipt among Aboriginal people living off-reserve using data from the 2012 Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS), a national survey of First Nations people living off reserve, Métis, and Inuit. In 2011, 12% of Aboriginal people living off-reserve received IA. It focused on socio-demographic, labour market and health characteristics found in different types of IA receipt. For almost half of the Aboriginal IA receivers, IA was their only source of income; it was the main (but not sole) source of income for 27%; and for the remaining 28%, IA was a secondary source of income. The receipt of IA was associated with socio-demographic characteristics such as never having been married; female; younger; less than high school levels of education; and living in lone-parent households. About 20% of IA recipients were employed in 2011. Compared with other Aboriginal workers not receiving IA, they were more likely to have a job with short tenure; to be part-time workers or temporary workers; and to work in the sector of sales and services. Compared to non-recipients, recipients of IA also reported significantly poorer mental and physical health conditions. The associations between health status and IA remained significant after controlling for other demographic factors. These results have important implications for policy makers and other stakeholders interested in IA for Aboriginal people. The complexity of employment, health, and other risk factors of IA need to be considered in further understanding these issues.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueaboriginal policy studiesSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207