MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124684524 · doi:10.59962/9780774857192-006

Consumption Inequality in Canada

2007· book-chapter· en· W3124684524 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas F. Crossley, Krishna Pendakur

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityImputation (statistics)Gini coefficientConsumption (sociology)EconomicsEconomic inequalityRentingEconometricsDemographic economicsStatisticsMathematicsMissing dataSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assess the evolution of consumption inequality in Canada over the years 1997 to 2009. We correct the imputation of shelter consumption for owner-occupiers to allow for unobserved differences in housing quality correlated with selection into rental tenure, and we account for measurement error in this imputation. Using the Surveys of Household Spending 1997-2009, we find that household-level consumption inequality measured by the Gini coefficient has increased from 0.251 to 0.275 over 1997 to 2006, and then declined to 0.264 by 2009. Individual level inequality similarly increased from 0.199 in 1997 to 0.216 in 2006, but fell to 0.207 in 2009. Income inequality followed a similar hump-shaped pattern, but the post-2006 decline was large enough to entirely wipe out pre-2006 gains. We also explore a possible correction for tail non-response bias in inequality measurement, and find that the increase in measured consumption inequality is robust to this correction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.131 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooksSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207