Economic Freedom of North America: 2004 Annual Report/Measuring Labour Markets in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A. Karabegovic, F. McMahon and D.Samida, with G. Mitchell, Economic Freedom of North America: 2004 Annual Report (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, with National Center for Policy Analysis United States of America, 2004), vi + 56pp. Paper. ISBN 0-8897-5210-9. A. Karabegovic, J. Clemens and N. Veldhuis, Measuring Labour Markets in Canada and the United States, 2003 edn, Critical Issues Bulletins (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 2003), 68pp. Paper. ISSN 1480-3666. These reports represent two studies from the neo-liberal right of centre independent organisation, The Fraser Institute. The reports have to be considered in the light of the Institute's prime objective to direct public attention to the role of competitive markets in economic well-being. From this neo-liberal position, a strong emphasis is a critical focus on levels of government control which is deemed a distortion in the operation of markets. The reports should be considered with this in mind. Economic Freedom of North America is the second edition of the annual report on economic freedom which presents a comprehensive set of ratings for US States and Canadian provinces. The methodology employs indices which are used on a 10-point scale, firstly to identify the impact of restrictions on freedom by all levels of government, and secondly at the level of state or provincial governments. Ten variables are grouped in three areas: 1) size of government, 2) takings and discriminatory taxation, 3) labour market freedom. The last variable area is new to the 2004 report and aims to measure how much policy affects workers' freedom to join or not join unions. The survey reports that while economic freedom has a marked impact in Canada, its effect on US states is much greater. Historically, during the late 1980s and early 1990s Canadian governments used the tax system to deal with the deficit problem more than US governments. It is thus argued that the gap between the US and Canada in terms of economic freedom grew through this period before a return to the 1981 level by the late 1990s. The report stresses that, in general, prosperity closely follows changes in economic freedom. For the US, it is argued that states have realized gains generated from economic freedom, while Canadian provinces have lost opportunities because of weak levels of economic freedom and the structure of Canadian federalism. On the basis of the indices employed, all provinces with the exception of Alberta are seen to be clustered at the bottom of the rankings for both all-government and sub-national levels, and also have low levels of prosperity. The report points to Ontario, Canada's economic powerhouse, which is only ahead of one state, West Virginia, in both indices, and with a level of prosperity only ahead of that state and Mississippi. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".