Distribution, Inequality and Concentration of Incomeamong Older Immigrants in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there are many studies on differences in earnings between immigrants and the native‐born or among immigrant groups, they do not consider distribution and concentration of income among immigrants explicitly. These aspects are important for understanding the distribution of economic welfare and consumer behaviour among members and hence are policy relevant. Using the 1991 Census data, the distribution and concentration of incomehave been examined among 15 broad birthplace groups for population aged55 years and over. About 19 per cent of males and 15 per cent of femalesreceive less than half the median income and obtain 5 per cent and 3 per centof the aggregate income respectively. About 30 per cent of males and29 per cent of females receive more than one and half times the medianincome and obtain 61 per cent and 59 per cent of aggregate incomerespectively. About 51 per cent of males and 56 per cent of females whoreceive incomes between half and one and half times the median income aretermed middle‐class and their shares of aggregate income amount to 34 and38 per cent respectively. Although older immigrants aged 55 years and over, as a group, have roughlythe same quartile distribution and concentration of income as theirCanadian‐born counterparts, the birthplace groups differ considerably.Those from the developing regions, that is, the groups that have loweraverage annual incomes, also have more inequitable distribution of incomethan the Canadian‐born or their counterparts from the developed regions. Thus, income distribution is more polarized in populations from developingregions than in populations from developed regions or in the Canadian‐bornpopulation. On average, females receive 45 per cent less income than males, and thereis less polarization of income among them than among males regardless ofthe place of birth. A part of the explanation lies in the receipt of government transfers, whichtend to equalize rather than polarize incomes, and older women derive ahigher proportion of their income from government transfers than older men.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".