MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406160330 · doi:10.4054/demres.2025.52.2

Studying individuals in same-sex couples using longitudinal administrative data from Canadian tax records: Opportunities and challenges

2025· article· en· W4406160330 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDemographic Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLongitudinal dataDemographic economicsPsychologyPolitical scienceDemographyBusinessEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Quantitative research on the social, demographic, and economic outcomes of sexual minorities has long been hampered by data shortfalls, with most surveys and censuses limited by sample sizes and/or a lack of direct questions on sexual identity. The growing availability of administrative data presents an opportunity to fill some of these gaps. OBJECTIVE: This article highlights the challenges and opportunities involved with using a novel administrative dataset – the Longitudinal Administrative Databank, which includes 20% of Canadian tax filers – to study sexual minority populations in Canada. We identify three sources of bias, propose strategies to adjust for this bias, and introduce a measure of “inferred sexual minority status” to improve the identification of sexual minorities in tax data. RESULTS: Administrative tax data offers significant advantages, including a large sample size, high-quality income data for individuals and linked family members, a longitudinal design, and the ability to trace individuals’ same-/different-sex partnership histories. Our adjustment strategies mitigate some biases in identifying same-sex couples, including underreporting, misclassification, and measurement errors. The estimated proportion of individuals in same-sex marriages closely aligns with Canadian census estimates from 2006–2021, while the proportion in same-sex common-law partnerships is underestimated. Finally, our earnings gaps analyses highlight the utility of the inferred sexual minority status measure. CONTRIBUTION: This article contributes to research on sexual minority data landscapes, offering new insights into the identification and measures of sexual minority populations using longitudinal administrative tax data. Our approach points to new opportunities for studying the long-term longitudinal income and family dynamics of sexual minority populations on the national level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.724
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.187 · 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