MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4254457921 · doi:10.1787/9789264233454-8-en

Access to and adequacy of income support for displaced workers in Canada

2015· book-chapter· en· W4254457921 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBack to work · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeveranceReceiptDisplaced workersIncome SupportPaymentLabour economicsIncentiveBusinessWork (physics)Demographic economicsEconomicsUnemploymentEconomic growthFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Income loss is one of the major costs borne by workers following job displacement. How to compensate displaced workers whilst improving their transition back into employment is one of the most critical challenges facing policy makers. In Canada, most displaced workers with stable work histories have relatively good access to income support through Employment Insurance (EI) whilst they look for new jobs. However, the severance payment provisions and the relatively short duration of EI benefit entitlements result in delayed coverage and re-employment support among older and long-tenured displaced workers, precisely the group who suffer the greatest barriers in returning to the labour market and income losses post displacement. A major challenge is to expedite re-employment support to workers in receipt of severance payments and boost incomes for older long-tenured workers whilst ensuring adequate incentives for them to find new jobs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBack to work→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→