MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230522969 · doi:10.3138/cpp.37.2.163

Explaining Declining Social Assistance Participation Rates: A Longitudinal Analysis of Manitoba Administrative and Population Data

2011· article· en· W4230522969 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Harvey Stevens, Wayne Simpson, Sid Frankel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial assistanceWelfareDemographic economicsLongitudinal dataContinuationBaseline (sea)Social WelfarePopulationSocial policyPolitical scienceDemographyEconomicsEconomic growthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper extends analyses of the declining social assistance participation rate in Canada since the mid-1990s using rich Manitoba administrative data for the period since 1999. We examine trends in Manitoba to mid-2008, separately analyze the entry and continuation rates, and include for the first time information about the growing number of adults with a disability on social assistance. Our results show that the declining participation rate is due entirely to a declining entry rate and that the continuation rate has actually risen since 1999, mainly because of the dramatic growth in the number of adults with a disability on social assistance but also because of the rising duration of spells on assistance by those without a disability. Our results raise questions about the policy, pursued in all jurisdictions in Canada, that keeps social assistance benefits low to discourage welfare use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.415
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.040 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207