MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125388243

An Econometric Analysis of the Impact of the Self-Sufficiency Project on the Employment Behaviour of Former Welfare Recipients

2006· preprint· en· W3125388243 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Jeffrey Zabel, Saul Schwartz, Stephen G. Donald

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2006
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHuman Resources and Skills Development CanadaMichigan Diabetes Research Center, University of MichiganSugar Research and Development Corporation
KeywordsEarningsWelfareEconomicsEconometric modelRaw dataWork (physics)Baseline (sea)Demographic economicsEstimationPercentage pointLabour economicsEconometricsStatisticsMathematicsEngineeringPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Self-Sufficiency Project (SSP) was a Canadian research and demonstration project that attempted to make work pay for long-term income assistance (IA) recipients by supplementing their earnings. The long-term goal of SSP was to get lone parents permanently off IA and into the paid labour force. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of SSP on employment and non-employment durations and its overall effect on employment rates. We focus on generating estimates of the effect of the treatment on the treated (TOT) where the treated are those in the program group who qualified for the earnings supplement by finding a full-time job during the qualifying period (a group we call the take-up group). To obtain a consistent estimate of TOT we follow the work of Ham and LaLonde (1996) and Eberwein, Ham and Lalonde (1997) in estimating a joint model of non-employment and employment durations that controls for unobserved heterogeneity and non-random selection into work and into the take-up group. We find evidence of significant impacts of SSP on non-employment and employment durations. Simulation results show a TOT on the employment rate at 52 months after baseline of approximately 4 percentage points; a 10 percent increase compared to the control group. Further, this estimate of TOT using the results from our econometric model is 5 percentage points higher than the estimate from the raw data.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.320 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207