MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3150273082 · doi:10.52324/001c.8076

Explaining Canadian Regional Wage Differentials

2014· article· en· W3150273082 on OpenAlex
Ian Graham Cahill, Michael Gager

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Regional Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsTreasury Board of Canada SecretariatGovernment of Canada
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsWageEconomies of agglomerationEconomicsContext (archaeology)Human capitalEconomic geographyCurrent Population SurveyLabour economicsPopulationCapital (architecture)Demographic economicsGeographyEconomic growthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore the potential of a human capital model augmented with controls for industry and occupation in explaining Canadian regional wage differentials. We place our approach in a broader theoretical context by first reviewing the literature on potential explanations for regional wage differences and also on the related issues of migration, population growth, industrial location, and agglomeration economies. We then estimate an econometric model using subprovincial wage data from the Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey. A striking finding is that subprovincial wage differences, including the urban-rural divide, can be explained by our model, but that the differences between broad regions defined by provincial boundaries cannot.

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.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.174 · 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