Accounting for a widening U.S.–Canada income gap
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INCOME GAPAccounting for a widening U.S.-Canada income gap D espite recent improvements, real disposable income per capita in Canada is still Can.$400lower than its level in 1989.This is significantly different from the trend obser ved in the United States, where real per capita disposable income has risen by about U.S.$2,400.This weak income performance in Canada requires a closer examination. THE DIRECT IMPACT OF TAXATIONThe high personal income tax rates in Canada, relative to the United States, are clearly an important factor to consider when analyzing the income gap between the two countries.Indeed, Canadians pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes and other transfers to governments.As of 1999, close to 25 cents of each dollar earned in Canada went to the various governments.This compares with only 19 cents in the United States.Over the decade, Canadians also saw the rate at which they transferred their income to governments rise faster than in the United States.Since 1989, transfers to governments, as a share of personal income, rose by close to 16 percent in Canada and by 13 percent in the United States.However, the direct impact of taxes did not explain all, or even most, of the increase in the income gap between the United States and Canada over the decade.One way of showing this is to compare pre-tax (gross) income and posttax (disposable) income in both countries.Since 1989, real gross income per capita in Canada rose by only 2.1 percent or Can.$500, while in the United States it rose by 20.6 percent or U.S.$2,850.This 18.5 percent performance gap is relatively close to the 20.0 percent performance gap observed for disposable (after-tax) income.Thus, the direct impact of taxation in accounting for the increase in the income gap was comparatively minor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it