Earnings trajectories of individuals in same-sex and different-sex couples: Evidence from administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We unite two interrelated bodies of work – a growing literature on sexual orientation earnings gaps and a rich tradition of research on intragenerational career trajectories – to examine how labor markets and life courses interact to produce gender and sexual orientation inequalities over time. We use the 1982–2019 Canadian Longitudinal Administrative Databank, a unique longitudinal database constructed from tax records, to answer core questions about the mechanisms that underlie sexual orientation earnings inequality. Growth curve models reveal how sexual orientation earnings gaps evolve over time spent in the workforce, and how they relate to differences in demographic and work characteristics for those in same- and different-sex couples at various points in the life course. We find that sexual orientation earnings gaps converge and diverge at unique career stages for men and women, and at each stage relate to unique mechanisms, especially work characteristics and family status. We find little significant variation in average earnings trajectories by sexual orientation across cohorts who were subject to differing legal and social environments surrounding sexual orientation.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".