Bibliographic record
Abstract
2 Gini coefficient, SCF/SLID: economic families, 1980-2000 3.3 Adult-equivalent market income: economic families, 1980-2000 3.4 Gini coefficient, disposable income: census families, 1992-2000 5.1 Consumption by birth cohort and year 5.2 Inequality of consumption by birth cohort and year 5.3 Age-consumption profiles by birth cohort 5.4 Age-inequality profiles by birth cohort 6.1 Annual number of hours worked per person 6.2 Differences in tastes and money income inequality 6.3 Average working hours in Canada compared to other countries, 1994-95 8.1 Mean disposable household equivalent income: ratios of top to bottom decile, fifth to bottom decile, Canada, 1973-97 8.2 Distribution of children by equivalent income deciles: all children, Canada, 1973all children, Canada, , 1985all children, Canada, , 1997 8.3 Distribution of children by equivalent income deciles: two parents, one child familes, Canada, 1973Canada, , 1985Canada, , 1997 8.4 Distribution of children by equivalent income deciles: two parents, three children families, Canada, 1973Canada, , 1985Canada, , 1997 8.5 Distribution of children by equivalent income deciles: families with mothers under age 25, Canada, 197325, Canada, , 198525, Canada, , 1997 8.6 Distribution of children by equivalent income deciles: single-mother families, Canada 1973Canada , 1985Canada , 1997 x ......
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.760 | 0.616 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".