Short‐term employment transitions of the Canadian labour force: rural‐urban differences in underemployment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using data from the Canadian Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID) for the period 1993–1996, we examine patterns and determinants of labour‐force transitions of adequately employed and underemployed workers in an attempt to explore whether employment dynamics significantly differ between rural and urban workers so as to disadvantage rural economic performance. The results indicate that rural adequately employed workers are significantly more likely to enter underemployment but once they are underemployed, they also have a higher probability of re‐entering adequate employment. Further, we also found weak evidence that the education level of workers has a lower impact on the probability of moving out of underemployment in rural than in urban areas. In addition, rural women are significantly less likely than their male counterparts and urban workers to enter adequate employment, although the presence of young children does not seem to especially constrain the employment of rural women. The results suggest that labour‐force transition in and out of adequate employment, and particularly underemployment, significantly differ between rural and urban workers and should be taken into account when evaluating employment hardship in rural Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".