MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126135854

L'evolution de l'inegalite de la richesse au Canada, 1984-1999

2002· article· fr· W3126135854 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marie Drolet, René Morissette, Xuelin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueDirection des etudes analytiques : documents de recherche · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGeographyPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A partir des donnees de l'Enquete de 1984 sur les avoirs et les dettes et de l'Enquete de 1999 sur la securite financiere, nous documentons l'evolution de l'inegalite de la richesse au Canada durant la periode de 1984 a 1999. Voici nos principales constatations: 1) l'inegalite de la richesse a augmente entre 1984 et 1999, 2) l'augmentation de l'inegalite de la richesse a ete associee a des baisses importantes de la richesse reelle moyenne et de la richesse mediane des jeunes couples ayant des enfants et des immigrants recents, 3) la richesse reelle mediane et la richesse reelle moyenne ont augmente beaucoup plus dans le cas des unites familiales dont le soutien economique principal est un diplome universitaire que dans le cas des autres unites familiales, 4) la richesse reelle mediane et la richesse moyenne ont diminue dans le cas des unites familiales dont le soutien economique principal est age de 25 a 34 ans et augmente dans le cas de celles dont le soutien economique principal est age de 55 ans et plus, 5) le vieillissement de la population canadienne durant la periode de 1984 a 1999 a eu tendance a diminuer l'inegalite de la richesse, 6) les variations divergentes du revenu permanent n'expliquent pas une partie importante de l'ecart croissant entre les unites familiales dont le niveau de richesse est faible et celles dont le niveau de richesse est eleve. Les facteurs qui ont peut-etre contribue a l'augmentation de l'inegalite de la richesse, et qui ne peuvent etre quantifies au moyen des series de donnees existantes, comprennent les differences dans l'augmentation de la valeur des heritages, des transferts entre vifs, des taux de rendement de l'epargne et du nombre d'annees travaillees a temps plein. Plus particulierement, les taux de rendement de l'epargne ont peut-etre augmente davantage dans le cas des unites familiales riches que des unites familiales plus pauvres en raison du boom boursier qui s'est produit durant les annees 90.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDirection des etudes analytiques : documents de rechercheSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207