MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W39368101

RURAL INCOME DISPARITIES IN CANADA: A COMPARISON ACROSS THE PROVINCES

2002· article· en· W39368101 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyRural populationRural areaSocioeconomicsPopulationHomogeneousDiversity (politics)Economic growthDemographyPolitical scienceEconomicsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One objective of public policy is to reduce income disparity in Canada. Previous research (e.g. Rupnik, Thompson-James and Bollman (2001)) has indicated that, on average, rural residents have a similar incidence of low income as urban residents. However, there is considerable diversity within rural regions, i.e. the term “rural” is far from being a homogeneous entity. For example, the rural regions in Ontario are very different from the rural regions in the Prairies due to the differences in population size and access to markets, among other features. Since rural regions across Canada differ economically and socially, it follows that the nature of rural income disparities could also differ across provinces in Canada. The objective of this study is to describe the range in income disparities across rural Canada. We will address two aspects:

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207