Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Bulletin analyses the labour force participation rate (LFPR) in Alberta in aggregate terms, by gender, and by age group through a separation of the effects of longer trends from shorter term influences. The labour force participation rate is simply the percent of the population in the labour force who are working or actively seeking work. The LFPR may be an overall or aggregate rate that is the proportion of the population 15 years of age and older that is in the labour force, or it may be expressed for gender or age sub-groups. Data for the LFPR comes from the Statistics Canada monthly Labour Force Survey of households. Across Canada LFPRs are far from uniform. Nationally, in 2007, the annual average was 67.6%. However, at the low end was Newfoundland and Labrador with a rate of 59.2%, while our neighbouring province of British Columbia recorded a rate of 66.3%. At a 2007 rate of 74.1%, Alberta was substantially above the national average and, indeed, had the highest rate in Canada—and one of the highest in the western world. Given the rather unique situation in Alberta, it is useful to examine in more detail the path of the LFPR over past decades and to consider the patterns of change in the demographic groups that make up the labour force.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".